Presentation on theme: "DBMS Storage and Indexing. Disk Storage Disks and Files DBMS stores information on (“hard”) disks. This has major implications for DBMS design! ▫ READ:"— Presentation transcript:
DBMS Storage and Indexing
Disks and Files DBMS stores information on (“hard”) disks. This has major implications for DBMS design! ▫ READ: transfer data from disk to main memory (RAM). ▫ WRITE: transfer data from RAM to disk. ▫ Both are high-cost operations, relative to in-memory operations, so must be planned carefully!
Why Not Store Everything in Main Memory? Costs too much. Main memory is volatile. We want data to be saved between runs. (Obviously!) Typical storage hierarchy: ▫ Main memory (RAM) for currently used data. ▫ Disk for the main database (secondary storage). ▫ Tapes for archiving older versions of the data (tertiary storage).
Disks Secondary storage device of choice. Main advantage over tapes: random access vs. sequential. Data is stored and retrieved in units called disk blocks or pages. Unlike RAM, time to retrieve a disk page varies depending upon location on disk. ▫ Therefore, relative placement of pages on disk has major impact on DBMS performance!
Components of a Disk Platters The platters spin (say, 90rps). Spindle The arm assembly is moved in or out to position a head on a desired track. Tracks under heads make a cylinder (imaginary!). Disk head Arm movement Arm assembly Only one head reads/writes at any one time. Tracks Sector Block size is a multiple of sector size (which is fixed).
Accessing a Disk Page Time to access (read/write) a disk block: ▫ seek time ( moving arms to position disk head on track ) ▫ rotational delay ( waiting for block to rotate under head ) ▫ transfer time ( actually moving data to/from disk surface ) Seek time and rotational delay dominate. ▫ Seek time varies from about 1 to 20msec ▫ Rotational delay varies from 0 to 10msec ▫ Transfer rate is about 1msec per 4KB page Key to lower I/O cost: reduce seek/rotation delays! Hardware vs. software solutions?
Arranging Pages on Disk `Next’ block concept: ▫ blocks on same track, followed by ▫ blocks on same cylinder, followed by ▫ blocks on adjacent cylinder Blocks in a file should be arranged sequentially on disk (by `next’), to minimize seek and rotational delay. For a sequential scan, pre-fetching several pages at a time is a big win!
RAID Disk Array: Arrangement of several disks that gives abstraction of a single, large disk. Goals: Increase performance and reliability. Two main techniques: ▫ Data striping: Data is partitioned; size of a partition is called the striping unit. Partitions are distributed over several disks. ▫ Redundancy: More disks => more failures. Redundant information allows reconstruction of data if a disk fails.
RAID Levels Level 0: No redundancy Level 1: Mirrored (two identical copies) ▫ Each disk has a mirror image (check disk) ▫ Parallel reads, a write involves two disks. ▫ Maximum transfer rate = transfer rate of one disk Level 0+1: Striping and Mirroring ▫ Parallel reads, a write involves two disks. ▫ Maximum transfer rate = aggregate bandwidth
RAID Levels (Contd.) Level 3: Bit-Interleaved Parity ▫ Striping Unit: One bit. One check disk. ▫ Each read and write request involves all disks; disk array can process one request at a time. Level 4: Block-Interleaved Parity ▫ Striping Unit: One disk block. One check disk. ▫ Parallel reads possible for small requests, large requests can utilize full bandwidth ▫ Writes involve modified block and check disk Level 5: Block-Interleaved Distributed Parity ▫ Similar to RAID Level 4, but parity blocks are distributed over all disks
Disk Space Management Lowest layer of DBMS software manages space on disk. Higher levels call upon this layer to: ▫ allocate/de-allocate a page ▫ read/write a page Request for a sequence of pages must be satisfied by allocating the pages sequentially on disk! Higher levels don’t need to know how this is done, or how free space is managed.
Buffer Management in a DBMS Data must be in RAM for DBMS to operate on it! Table of pairs is maintained. DB MAIN MEMORY DISK disk page free frame Page Requests from Higher Levels BUFFER POOL choice of frame dictated by replacement policy
When a Page is Requested... If requested page is not in pool: ▫ Choose a frame for replacement ▫ If frame is dirty, write it to disk ▫ Read requested page into chosen frame Pin the page and return its address. * If requests can be predicted (e.g., sequential scans) pages can be pre-fetched several pages at a time!
More on Buffer Management Requestor of page must unpin it, and indicate whether page has been modified: ▫ dirty bit is used for this. Page in pool may be requested many times, ▫ a pin count is used. A page is a candidate for replacement iff pin count = 0. CC & recovery may entail additional I/O when a frame is chosen for replacement. (Write-Ahead Log protocol; more later.)
Buffer Replacement Policy Frame is chosen for replacement by a replacement policy: ▫ Least-recently-used (LRU), Clock, MRU etc. Policy can have big impact on # of I/O’s; depends on the access pattern. Sequential flooding: Nasty situation caused by LRU + repeated sequential scans. ▫ # buffer frames < # pages in file means each page request causes an I/O. MRU much better in this situation (but not in all situations, of course). DBMS buffer policy has specific requirements
Summary Disks provide cheap, non-volatile storage. ▫ Random access, but cost depends on location of page on disk; important to arrange data sequentially to minimize seek and rotation delays. Buffer manager brings pages into RAM. ▫ Page stays in RAM until released by requestor. ▫ Written to disk when frame chosen for replacement (which is sometime after requestor releases the page). ▫ Choice of frame to replace based on replacement policy. ▫ Tries to pre-fetch several pages at a time.
Record Formats: Fixed Length Information about field types same for all records in a file; stored in system catalogs. Finding i’th field does not require scan of record. Base address (B) L1L2L3L4 F1F2F3F4 Address = B+L1+L2
Record Formats: Variable Length Two alternative formats (# fields is fixed): * Second offers direct access to i’th field, efficient storage of nulls (special don’t know value); small directory overhead. 4$$$$ Field Count Fields Delimited by Special Symbols F1 F2 F3 F4 Array of Field Offsets
Page Formats: Fixed Length Records *Record id =. In first alternative, moving records for free space management changes rid; may not be acceptable. Slot 1 Slot 2 Slot N... N M1 0 M... 3 2 1 PACKED UNPACKED, BITMAP Slot 1 Slot 2 Slot N Free Space Slot M 11 number of records number of slots
Page Formats: Variable Length Records *Can move records on page without changing rid; so, attractive for fixed-length records too. Page i Rid = (i,N) Rid = (i,2) Rid = (i,1) Pointer to start of free space SLOT DIRECTORY N... 2 1 201624 N # slots
Files of Records Page or block is OK when doing I/O, but higher levels of DBMS operate on records, and files of records. FILE : A collection of pages, each containing a collection of records. Must support: ▫ insert/delete/modify record ▫ read a particular record (specified using record id) ▫ scan all records (possibly with some conditions on the records to be retrieved)
Alternative File Organizations Many alternatives exist, each ideal for some situations, and not so good in others: ▫ Heap (random order) files: Suitable when typical access is a file scan retrieving all records. ▫ Sorted Files: Best if records must be retrieved in some order, or only a `range’ of records is needed. ▫ Indexes: Data structures to organize records via trees or hashing. Like sorted files, they speed up searches for a subset of records, based on values in certain (“search key”) fields Updates are much faster than in sorted files.
Unordered (Heap) Files Simplest file structure contains records in no particular order. As file grows and shrinks, disk pages are allocated and de- allocated. To support record level operations, we must: ▫ keep track of the pages in a file ▫ keep track of free space on pages ▫ keep track of the records on a page There are many alternatives for keeping track of this.
Heap File Implemented as a List The header page id and Heap file name must be stored someplace. Each page contains 2 `pointers’ plus data. Header Page Data Page Data Page Data Page Data Page Data Page Data Page Pages with Free Space Full Pages
Heap File Using a Page Directory The entry for a page can include the number of free bytes on the page. The directory is a collection of pages; linked list implementation is just one alternative. ▫ Much smaller than linked list of all HF pages! Data Page 1 Data Page 2 Data Page N Header Page DIRECTORY
System Catalogs For each index: ▫ structure (e.g., B+ tree) and search key fields For each relation: ▫ name, file name, file structure (e.g., Heap file) ▫ attribute name and type, for each attribute ▫ index name, for each index ▫ integrity constraints For each view: ▫ view name and definition Plus statistics, authorization, buffer pool size, etc. * Catalogs are themselves stored as relations !
Indexes An index on a file speeds up selections on the search key fields for the index. ▫ Any subset of the fields of a relation can be the search key for an index on the relation. ▫ Search key is not the same as key (minimal set of fields that uniquely identify a record in a relation). An index contains a collection of data entries, and supports efficient retrieval of all data entries k* with a given key value k. ▫Given data entry k*, we can find record with key k in at most one disk I/O. (Details soon …)
Alternatives for Data Entry k* in Index In a data entry k* we can store: ▫ Data record with key value k, or ▫, or ▫ Choice of alternative for data entries is orthogonal to the indexing technique used to locate data entries with a given key value k. ▫Examples of indexing techniques: B+ trees, hash-based structures ▫Typically, index contains auxiliary information that directs searches to the desired data entries
Alternatives for Data Entries (Contd.) Alternative 1: ▫ If this is used, index structure is a file organization for data records (instead of a Heap file or sorted file). ▫ At most one index on a given collection of data records can use Alternative 1. (Otherwise, data records are duplicated, leading to redundant storage and potential inconsistency.) ▫ If data records are very large, # of pages containing data entries is high. Implies size of auxiliary information in the index is also large, typically.
Alternatives for Data Entries (Contd.) Alternatives 2 and 3: ▫ Data entries typically much smaller than data records. So, better than Alternative 1 with large data records, especially if search keys are small. (Portion of index structure used to direct search, which depends on size of data entries, is much smaller than with Alternative 1.) ▫ Alternative 3 more compact than Alternative 2, but leads to variable sized data entries even if search keys are of fixed length.
Index Classification Primary vs. secondary: If search key contains primary key, then called primary index. ▫ Unique index: Search key contains a candidate key. Clustered vs. unclustered: If order of data records is the same as, or `close to’, order of data entries, then called clustered index. ▫ Alternative 1 implies clustered; in practice, clustered also implies Alternative 1 (since sorted files are rare). ▫ A file can be clustered on at most one search key. ▫ Cost of retrieving data records through index varies greatly based on whether index is clustered or not!
Clustered vs. Unclustered Index Suppose that Alternative (2) is used for data entries, and that the data records are stored in a Heap file. ▫ To build clustered index, first sort the Heap file (with some free space on each page for future inserts). ▫ Overflow pages may be needed for inserts. (Thus, order of data recs is `close to’, but not identical to, the sort order.) Index entries Data entries direct search for (Index File) (Data file) Data Records data entries Data entries Data Records CLUSTERED UNCLUSTERED
Introduction As for any index, 3 alternatives for data entries k*: ▫ Data record with key value k ▫ Choice is orthogonal to the indexing technique used to locate data entries k*. Tree-structured indexing techniques support both range searches and equality searches. ISAM: static structure; B+ tree: dynamic, adjusts gracefully under inserts and deletes.
Range Searches ``Find all students with gpa > 3.0’’ ▫ If data is in sorted file, do binary search to find first such student, then scan to find others. ▫ Cost of binary search can be quite high. Simple idea: Create an `index’ file. * Can do binary search on (smaller) index file! Page 1 Page 2 Page N Page 3 Data File k2 kN k1 Index File
B+ Tree: Most Widely Used Index Insert/delete at log F N cost; keep tree height- balanced. (F = fanout, N = # leaf pages) Minimum 50% occupancy (except for root). Each node contains d <= m <= 2d entries. The parameter d is called the order of the tree. Supports equality and range-searches efficiently. Index Entries Data Entries ("Sequence set") (Direct search)
Example B+ Tree Search begins at root, and key comparisons direct it to a leaf. Search for 5*, 15*, all data entries >= 24*... * Based on the search for 15*, we know it is not in the tree! Root 1724 30 2* 3*5* 7*14*16* 19*20*22*24*27* 29*33*34* 38* 39* 13
B+ Trees in Practice Typical order: 100. Typical fill-factor: 67%. ▫ average fanout = 133 Typical capacities: ▫ Height 4: 133 4 = 312,900,700 records ▫ Height 3: 133 3 = 2,352,637 records Can often hold top levels in buffer pool: ▫ Level 1 = 1 page = 8 Kbytes ▫ Level 2 = 133 pages = 1 Mbyte ▫ Level 3 = 17,689 pages = 133 MBytes
Inserting a Data Entry into a B+ Tree Find correct leaf L. Put data entry onto L. ▫ If L has enough space, done! ▫ Else, must split L (into L and a new node L2) Redistribute entries evenly, copy up middle key. Insert index entry pointing to L2 into parent of L. This can happen recursively ▫ To split index node, redistribute entries evenly, but push up middle key. (Contrast with leaf splits.) Splits “grow” tree; root split increases height. ▫ Tree growth: gets wider or one level taller at top.
Inserting 8* into Example B+ Tree Observe how minimum occupancy is guaranteed in both leaf and index pg splits. Note difference between copy- up and push-up; be sure you understand the reasons for this. 2* 3*5* 7* 8* 5 Entry to be inserted in parent node. (Note that 5 is continues to appear in the leaf.) s copied up and appears once in the index. Contrast 52430 17 13 Entry to be inserted in parent node. (Note that 17 is pushed up and only this with a leaf split.)
Example B+ Tree After Inserting 8* Notice that root was split, leading to increase in height. In this example, we can avoid split by re-distributing entries; however, this is usually not done in practice. 2*3* Root 17 24 30 14*16* 19*20*22*24*27* 29*33*34* 38* 39* 135 7*5*8*
Deleting a Data Entry from a B+ Tree Start at root, find leaf L where entry belongs. Remove the entry. ▫ If L is at least half-full, done! ▫ If L has only d-1 entries, Try to re-distribute, borrowing from sibling (adjacent node with same parent as L). If re-distribution fails, merge L and sibling. If merge occurred, must delete entry (pointing to L or sibling) from parent of L. Merge could propagate to root, decreasing height.
Example Tree After (Inserting 8*, Then) Deleting 19* and 20*... Deleting 19* is easy. Deleting 20* is done with re-distribution. Notice how middle key is copied up. 2*3* Root 17 30 14*16* 33*34* 38* 39* 135 7*5*8*22*24* 27 27*29*
... And Then Deleting 24* Must merge. Observe `toss’ of index entry (on right), and `pull down’ of index entry (below). 30 22*27* 29*33*34* 38* 39* 2* 3* 7* 14*16* 22* 27* 29* 33*34* 38* 39* 5*8* Root 30 135 17
Example of Non-leaf Re-distribution Tree is shown below during deletion of 24*. (What could be a possible initial tree?) In contrast to previous example, can re-distribute entry from left child of root to right child. Root 135 1720 22 30 14*16* 17*18* 20*33*34* 38* 39* 22*27*29*21* 7*5*8* 3*2*
After Re-distribution Intuitively, entries are re-distributed by `pushing through’ the splitting entry in the parent node. It suffices to re-distribute index entry with key 20; we’ve re-distributed 17 as well for illustration. 14*16* 33*34* 38* 39* 22*27*29* 17*18* 20*21* 7*5*8* 2*3* Root 135 17 30 20 22
Prefix Key Compression Important to increase fan-out. (Why?) Key values in index entries only `direct traffic’; can often compress them. ▫ E.g., If we have adjacent index entries with search key values Dannon Yogurt, David Smith and Devarakonda Murthy, we can abbreviate David Smith to Dav. (The other keys can be compressed too...) Is this correct? Not quite! What if there is a data entry Davey Jones? (Can only compress David Smith to Davi) In general, while compressing, must leave each index entry greater than every key value (in any subtree) to its left. Insert/delete must be suitably modified.
Bulk Loading of a B+ Tree If we have a large collection of records, and we want to create a B+ tree on some field, doing so by repeatedly inserting records is very slow. Bulk Loading can be done much more efficiently. Initialization: Sort all data entries, insert pointer to first (leaf) page in a new (root) page. 3* 4* 6*9*10*11*12*13* 20*22* 23*31* 35* 36*38*41*44* Sorted pages of data entries; not yet in B+ tree Root
Bulk Loading (Contd.) Index entries for leaf pages always entered into right- most index page just above leaf level. When this fills up, it splits. (Split may go up right-most path to the root.) Much faster than repeated inserts, especially when one considers locking! 3* 4* 6*9*10*11*12*13* 20*22* 23*31* 35* 36*38*41*44* Root Data entry pages not yet in B+ tree 3523126 1020 3* 4* 6*9*10*11*12*13* 20*22* 23*31* 35* 36*38*41*44* 6 Root 10 12 23 20 35 38 not yet in B+ tree Data entry pages
Summary of Bulk Loading Option 1: multiple inserts. ▫ Slow. ▫ Does not give sequential storage of leaves. Option 2: Bulk Loading ▫ Has advantages for concurrency control. ▫ Fewer I/Os during build. ▫ Leaves will be stored sequentially (and linked, of course). ▫ Can control “fill factor” on pages.
A Note on `Order’ Order (d) concept replaced by physical space criterion in practice (`at least half-full’). ▫ Index pages can typically hold many more entries than leaf pages. ▫ Variable sized records and search keys mean different nodes will contain different numbers of entries. ▫ Even with fixed length fields, multiple records with the same search key value (duplicates) can lead to variable- sized data entries (if we use Alternative (3)).
Summary Tree-structured indexes are ideal for range- searches, also good for equality searches. B+ tree is a dynamic structure. ▫ Inserts/deletes leave tree height-balanced; log F N cost. ▫ High fanout (F) means depth rarely more than 3 or 4. ▫ Almost always better than maintaining a sorted file.
Summary (Contd.) ▫ Typically, 67% occupancy on average. ▫ Usually preferable to ISAM, modulo locking considerations; adjusts to growth gracefully. ▫ If data entries are data records, splits can change rids! Key compression increases fanout, reduces height. Bulk loading can be much faster than repeated inserts for creating a B+ tree on a large data set. Most widely used index in database management systems because of its versatility. One of the most optimized components of a DBMS.
Introduction As for any index, 3 alternatives for data entries k*: ▫ Data record with key value k ▫ ▫ Choice orthogonal to the indexing technique Hash-based indexes are best for equality selections. Cannot support range searches. Static and dynamic hashing techniques exist;
Static Hashing # primary pages fixed, allocated sequentially, never de-allocated; overflow pages if needed. h(k) mod M = bucket to which data entry with key k belongs. (M = # of buckets) h(key) mod N h key Primary bucket pages Overflow pages 2 0 N-1
Static Hashing (Contd.) Buckets contain data entries. Hash fn works on search key field of record r. Must distribute values over range 0... M-1. ▫ h(key) = (a * key + b) usually works well. ▫ a and b are constants; lots known about how to tune h. Long overflow chains can develop and degrade performance. ▫ Extendible and Linear Hashing: Dynamic techniques to fix this problem.
Extendible Hashing Situation: Bucket (primary page) becomes full. Why not re-organize file by doubling # of buckets? ▫ Reading and writing all pages is expensive! ▫ Idea: Use directory of pointers to buckets, double # of buckets by doubling the directory, splitting just the bucket that overflowed! ▫ Directory much smaller than file, so doubling it is much cheaper. Only one page of data entries is split. No overflow page! ▫ Trick lies in how hash function is adjusted!
Example Directory is array of size 4. To find bucket for r, take last `global depth’ # bits of h(r); we denote r by h(r). ▫ If h(r) = 5 = binary 101, it is in bucket pointed to by 01. Insert : If bucket is full, split it ( allocate new page, re-distribute ). If necessary, double the directory. (As we will see, splitting a bucket does not always require doubling; we can tell by comparing global depth with local depth for the split bucket.) 13* 00 01 10 11 2 2 2 2 2 LOCAL DEPTH GLOBAL DEPTH DIRECTORY Bucket A Bucket B Bucket C Bucket D DATA PAGES 10* 1*21* 4*12*32* 16* 15*7*19* 5*
Insert h(r)=20 (Causes Doubling) 20* 00 01 10 11 2 2 2 2 LOCAL DEPTH 2 2 DIRECTORY GLOBAL DEPTH Bucket A Bucket B Bucket C Bucket D Bucket A2 (`split image' of Bucket A) 1* 5*21*13* 32* 16* 10* 15*7*19* 4*12* 19* 2 2 2 000 001 010 011 100 101 110 111 3 3 3 DIRECTORY Bucket A Bucket B Bucket C Bucket D Bucket A2 (`split image' of Bucket A) 32* 1*5*21*13* 16* 10* 15* 7* 4* 20* 12* LOCAL DEPTH GLOBAL DEPTH
Points to Note 20 = binary 10100. Last 2 bits (00) tell us r belongs in A or A2. Last 3 bits needed to tell which. ▫ Global depth of directory: Max # of bits needed to tell which bucket an entry belongs to. ▫ Local depth of a bucket: # of bits used to determine if an entry belongs to this bucket. When does bucket split cause directory doubling? ▫ Before insert, local depth of bucket = global depth. Insert causes local depth to become > global depth; directory is doubled by copying it over and `fixing’ pointer to split image page. (Use of least significant bits enables efficient doubling via copying of directory!)
Directory Doubling 0 0101 1010 1 2 Why use least significant bits in directory? ó Allows for doubling via copying! 000 001 010 011 3 100 101 110 111 vs. 0 1 1 6* 6 = 110 0 1010 0101 1 2 3 0 1 1 6* 6 = 110 000 100 010 110 001 101 011 111 Least SignificantMost Significant
Comments on Extendible Hashing If directory fits in memory, equality search answered with one disk access; else two. ▫ 100MB file, 100 bytes/rec, 4K pages contains 1,000,000 records (as data entries) and 25,000 directory elements; chances are high that directory will fit in memory. ▫ Directory grows in spurts, and, if the distribution of hash values is skewed, directory can grow large. ▫ Multiple entries with same hash value cause problems! Delete: If removal of data entry makes bucket empty, can be merged with `split image’. If each directory element points to same bucket as its split image, can halve directory.
Summary Hash-based indexes: best for equality searches, cannot support range searches. Static Hashing can lead to long overflow chains. Extendible Hashing avoids overflow pages by splitting a full bucket when a new data entry is to be added to it. (Duplicates may require overflow pages.) ▫ Directory to keep track of buckets, doubles periodically. ▫ Can get large with skewed data; additional I/O if this does not fit in main memory. For hash-based indexes, a skewed data distribution is one in which the hash values of data entries are not uniformly distributed!
Comparing Storage Techniques
Cost Model for Our Analysis We ignore CPU costs, for simplicity: ▫ B: The number of data pages ▫ R: Number of records per page ▫ D: (Average) time to read or write disk page ▫ Measuring number of page I/O’s ignores gains of pre-fetching a sequence of pages; thus, even I/O cost is only approximated. ▫ Average-case analysis; based on several simplistic assumptions. * Good enough to show the overall trends!
Comparing File Organizations Heap files (random order; insert at eof) Sorted files, sorted on Clustered B+ tree file, Alternative (1), search key Heap file with unclustered B + tree index on search key Heap file with unclustered hash index on search key
Operations to Compare Scan: Fetch all records from disk Equality search Range selection Insert a record Delete a record
Assumptions in Our Analysis Heap Files: ▫ Equality selection on key; exactly one match. Sorted Files: ▫ Files compacted after deletions. Indexes: ▫Alt (2), (3): data entry size = 10% size of record ▫ Hash: No overflow buckets. 80% page occupancy => File size = 1.25 data size ▫ Tree: 67% occupancy (this is typical). Implies file size = 1.5 data size
Assumptions (contd.) Scans: ▫Leaf levels of a tree-index are chained. ▫Index data-entries plus actual file scanned for unclustered indexes. Range searches: ▫We use tree indexes to restrict the set of data records fetched, but ignore hash indexes.
Cost of Operations * Several assumptions underlie these (rough) estimates!
Cost of Operations * Several assumptions underlie these (rough) estimates!
Choosing a File Organization
Understanding the Workload For each query in the workload: ▫ Which relations does it access? ▫ Which attributes are retrieved? ▫ Which attributes are involved in selection/join conditions? How selective are these conditions likely to be? For each update in the workload: ▫ Which attributes are involved in selection/join conditions? How selective are these conditions likely to be? ▫ The type of update ( INSERT/DELETE/UPDATE ), and the attributes that are affected.
Choice of Indexes What indexes should we create? ▫ Which relations should have indexes? What field(s) should be the search key? Should we build several indexes? For each index, what kind of an index should it be? ▫ Clustered? Hash/tree?
Choice of Indexes (Contd.) One approach: Consider the most important queries in turn. Consider the best plan using the current indexes, and see if a better plan is possible with an additional index. If so, create it. ▫Obviously, this implies that we must understand how a DBMS evaluates queries and creates query evaluation plans! ▫For now, we discuss simple 1-table queries. Before creating an index, must also consider the impact on updates in the workload! ▫ Trade-off: Indexes can make queries go faster, updates slower. Require disk space, too.
Index Selection Guidelines Attributes in WHERE clause are candidates for index keys. ▫Exact match condition suggests hash index. ▫Range query suggests tree index. Clustering is especially useful for range queries; can also help on equality queries if there are many duplicates. Multi-attribute search keys should be considered when a WHERE clause contains several conditions. ▫ Order of attributes is important for range queries. ▫ Such indexes can sometimes enable index-only strategies for important queries. For index-only strategies, clustering is not important! Try to choose indexes that benefit as many queries as possible. Since only one index can be clustered per relation, choose it based on important queries that would benefit the most from clustering.
Examples of Clustered Indexes B+ tree index on E.age can be used to get qualifying tuples. ▫ How selective is the condition? ▫ Is the index clustered? Consider the GROUP BY query. ▫ If many tuples have E.age > 10, using E.age index and sorting the retrieved tuples may be costly. ▫ Clustered E.dno index may be better! Equality queries and duplicates: ▫ Clustering on E.hobby helps! SELECT E.dno FROM Emp E WHERE E.age>40 SELECT E.dno, COUNT (*) FROM Emp E WHERE E.age>10 GROUP BY E.dno SELECT E.dno FROM Emp E WHERE E.hobby=Stamps
Indexes with Composite Search Keys Composite Search Keys: Search on a combination of fields. ▫ Equality query: Every field value is equal to a constant value. E.g. wrt index: age=20 and sal =75 ▫ Range query: Some field value is not a constant. E.g.: age =20; or age=20 and sal > 10 Data entries in index sorted by search key to support range queries. ▫ Lexicographic order, or ▫ Spatial order. sue1375 bob cal joe12 10 20 8011 12 nameagesal 12,20 12,10 11,80 13,75 20,12 10,12 75,13 80,11 11 12 13 10 20 75 80 Data records sorted by name Data entries in index sorted by Data entries sorted by Examples of composite key indexes using lexicographic order.
Composite Search Keys To retrieve Emp records with age=30 AND sal=4000, an index on would be better than an index on age or an index on sal. ▫ Choice of index key orthogonal to clustering etc. If condition is: 20
"name": "Composite Search Keys To retrieve Emp records with age=30 AND sal=4000, an index on would be better than an index on age or an index on sal.",
"description": "▫ Choice of index key orthogonal to clustering etc. If condition is: 20
Index-Only Plans A number of queries can be answered without retrieving any tuples from one or more of the relations involved if a suitable index is available. SELECT E.dno, COUNT (*) FROM Emp E GROUP BY E.dno SELECT E.dno, MIN (E.sal) FROM Emp E GROUP BY E.dno SELECT AVG (E.sal) FROM Emp E WHERE E.age=25 AND E.sal BETWEEN 3000 AND 5000 Tree index! or Tree index!
Index-Only Plans (Contd.) Index-only plans are possible if the key is or we have a tree index with key ▫Which is better? ▫What if we consider the second query? SELECT E.dno, COUNT (*) FROM Emp E WHERE E.age=30 GROUP BY E.dno SELECT E.dno, COUNT (*) FROM Emp E WHERE E.age>30 GROUP BY E.dno
Index-Only Plans (Contd.) Index-only plans can also be found for queries involving more than one table; more on this later. SELECT D.mgr FROM Dept D, Emp E WHERE D.dno=E.dno SELECT D.mgr, E.eid FROM Dept D, Emp E WHERE D.dno=E.dno
Summary Many alternative file organizations exist, each appropriate in some situation. If selection queries are frequent, sorting the file or building an index is important. ▫ Hash-based indexes only good for equality search. ▫ Sorted files and tree-based indexes best for range search; also good for equality search. (Files rarely kept sorted in practice; B+ tree index is better.) Index is a collection of data entries plus a way to quickly find entries with given key values.
Summary (Contd.) Data entries can be actual data records, pairs, or pairs. ▫ Choice orthogonal to indexing technique used to locate data entries with a given key value. Can have several indexes on a given file of data records, each with a different search key. Indexes can be classified as clustered vs. unclustered, primary vs. secondary, and dense vs. sparse. Differences have important consequences for utility/performance.
Summary (Contd.) Understanding the nature of the workload for the application, and the performance goals, is essential to developing a good design. ▫ What are the important queries and updates? What attributes/relations are involved? Indexes must be chosen to speed up important queries (and perhaps some updates!). ▫ Index maintenance overhead on updates to key fields. ▫ Choose indexes that can help many queries, if possible. ▫ Build indexes to support index-only strategies. ▫ Clustering is an important decision; only one index on a given relation can be clustered! ▫ Order of fields in composite index key can be important.