 Download Presentation Query Optimization

# Query Optimization - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Query Optimization. General Overview. Relational model - SQL Formal & commercial query languages Functional Dependencies Normalization Physical Design Storage Txns, Concurrency Control Indexing Query Processing and Optimization. Review-Plan Generation. I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation ## Query Optimization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
1. Query Optimization

2. General Overview • Relational model - SQL • Formal & commercial query languages • Functional Dependencies • Normalization Physical Design • Storage • Txns, Concurrency Control • Indexing • Query Processing and Optimization

3. Review-Plan Generation Metadata: DBMS maintains statistics about each relation, attribute and index. Plan generation: • Generate many alternative plans • We saw many for selections, joins • Estimate cost for each and choose best Plans examined: Selection: Linear, binary, PI, SI Range: PI, SI Joins: NLJ, BNLJ, INLJ, SMJ, HJ

4. Review-Plan Generation Depends upon a cost model For any query, must know its estimated cardinality its estimated cost (in # of I/Os) E.g.: A = K (R )  cardinality SC(A, R)  cost: depends on the plan, attribute: Linear Scan bR /2 bR Binary Search log2(bR) log2(bR)+sc(A, R)/fR -1 PI Scan HTi +1 HTi +sc(A, R) / fR

5. Other Operations • Duplicate elimination can be implemented via hashing or sorting. • Optimization: duplicates can be deleted during run generation as well as at intermediate merge steps in external sort-merge. • Hashing is similar – duplicates will come into the same bucket. • Projection is implemented by performing projection on each tuple followed by duplicate elimination.

6. Transformation of Relational Expressions • Two RA expressions are equivalent if they produce the same results on the same inputs • In SQL, inputs and outputs are multisets of tuples • Two expressions in the multiset version of the relational algebra are said to be equivalent if on every legal database instance the two expressions generate the same multiset of tuples • An equivalence rule says that expressions of two forms are equivalent • Can replace expression of first form by second, or vice versa

7. Equivalence Rules 1. Conjunctive selection operations can be deconstructed into a sequence of individual selections. 2. Selection operations are commutative. 3. Only the last in a sequence of projection operations is needed, the others can be omitted. • Selections can be combined with Cartesian products and theta joins. • (R1X R2) = R1 R2 • 1(R12 R2) = R11 2R2

8. Equivalence Rules (Cont.) 5. Theta-join operations (and natural joins) are commutative.R1  R2 = R2 R1 6. (a) Natural join operations are associative: (R1 R2) R3 = R1 (R2 R3)(b) Theta joins are associative in the following manner:(R1 1 R2) 2 3R3 = R1 2 3 (R22 R3) where 2involves attributes from only R2 and R3.

9.  R1 R2 R2 R1 R1 R3 R1 R2 R2 R3

10. Equivalence Rules (Cont.) • The selection operation distributes over the theta join operation under the following two conditions: (a) When all the attributes in 0 involve only the attributes of one of the expressions (R1) being joined.0R1  R2) = (0(R1))  R2 (b) When 1 involves only the attributes of R1 and2 involves only the attributes of R2. 1 R1 R2) = (1(R1))  ( (R2))

11. Equivalence Rules (Cont.) 8. The projections operation distributes over the theta join operation as follows: (a) if  involves only attributes from L1 L2: (b) Consider a join E1  E2. • Let L1 and L2 be sets of attributes from E1 and E2, respectively. • Let L3 be attributes of E1 that are involved in join condition , but are not in L1 L2, and • let L4 be attributes of E2 that are involved in join condition , but are not in L1 L2.

12. Transformation Example • Query: Find the names of all customers who have an account at some branch located in Brooklyn. customer-name(branch-city = “Brooklyn” (branch (account depositor))) • Transformation using rule 7a. customer-name ((branch-city =“Brooklyn” (branch)) (account depositor)) • Performing the selection as early as possible reduces the size of the relation to be joined.

13. Example with Multiple Transformations • Query: Find the names of all customers with an account at a Brooklyn branch whose account balance is over \$1000.customer-name((branch-city = “Brooklyn”  balance > 1000(branch (account depositor))) • Transformation using join associatively (Rule 6a):customer-name((branch-city = “Brooklyn”  balance > 1000(branch account) depositor) Second form provides an opportunity to apply the “perform selections early” rule, resulting in the subexpression branch-city = “Brooklyn”(branch)  balance > 1000 (account)

14. Multiple Transformations (Cont.)

15. Projection Operation Example • When we compute (branch-city = “Brooklyn” (branch) account )we obtain a relation whose schema is:(branch-name, branch-city, assets, account-number, balance) • Push projections using equivalence rules 8a and 8b; eliminate unneeded attributes from intermediate results to get: customer-name (( account-number( (branch-city = “Brooklyn” (branch) account )) depositor) customer-name((branch-city = “Brooklyn”(branch) account) depositor)

16. Join Ordering Example • For all relations r1, r2, and r3, (r1r2) r3 = r1 (r2r3 ) • If r2r3 is quite large and r1r2 is small, we choose (r1r2) r3 so that we compute and store a smaller temporary relation.

17. Join Ordering Example (Cont.) • Consider the expression customer-name((branch-city = “Brooklyn” (branch))account depositor) • Could compute account depositor first, and join result with branch-city = “Brooklyn” (branch)but account depositor is likely to be a large relation. • Since it is more likely that only a small fraction of the bank’s customers have accounts in branches located in Brooklyn, it is better to compute branch-city = “Brooklyn” (branch) account first.

18. Enumeration of Equivalent Expressions • Query optimizers use equivalence rules to generate equivalent expressions • 1st Approach: Generate all equivalent expressions • But... Very expensive • 2nd Approach: Exploit common subexpressions: • when E1 is generated from E2 by an equivalence rule, usually only the top level of the two are different, subtrees below are the same and can be shared • E.g. when applying join associativity • Time requirements are reduced by not generating all expressions

19. Evaluation Plan Example

20. Cost-Based Optimization • Consider finding the best join-order for r1r2 . . . rn. • There are (2(n – 1))!/(n – 1)! different join orders for above expression. With n = 7, the number is 665280, with n = 10, thenumber is greater than 176 billion! • No need to generate all the join orders. Using dynamic programming, the least-cost join order for any subset of {r1, r2, . . . rn} is computed only once and stored for future use.

21. Dynamic Programming in Optimization • To find best join tree for a set of n relations: • To find best plan for a set S of n relations, consider all possible plans of the form: S1 (S – S1) where S1 is any non-empty subset of S. • Recursively compute costs for joining subsets of S to find the cost of each plan. Choose the cheapest of the 2n– 1 alternatives. • With dynamic programming time complexity of optimization with bushy trees is O(3n). • Space complexity is O(2n) • If only left-deep trees are considered, time complexity of finding best join order is O(n 2n) • Space complexity remains at O(2n) • Cost-based optimization is expensive, but worthwhile for queries on large datasets (typical queries have small n, generally < 10)

22. Heuristic Optimization • Cost-based optimization is expensive, even with dynamic programming. • Systems may use heuristics to reduce the number of choices that must be made in a cost-based fashion. • Heuristic optimization transforms the query-tree by using a set of rules that typically (but not in all cases) improve execution performance: • Perform selection early (reduces the number of tuples) • Perform projection early (reduces the number of attributes) • Perform most restrictive selection and join operations before other similar operations. • Some systems use only heuristics, others combine heuristics with partial cost-based optimization.

23. Steps in Typical Heuristic Optimization 1. Deconstruct conjunctive selections into a sequence of single selection operations (Equiv. rule 1.). 2. Move selection operations down the query tree for the earliest possible execution (Equiv. rules 2, 7a, 7b, 11). 3. Execute first those selection and join operations that will produce the smallest relations (Equiv. rule 6). 4. Replace Cartesian product operations that are followed by a selection condition by join operations (Equiv. rule 4a). 5. Deconstruct and move as far down the tree as possible lists of projection attributes, creating new projections where needed (Equiv. rules 3, 8a, 8b, 12). 6. Identify those subtrees whose operations can be pipelined, and execute them using pipelining).