||This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. (March 2013)|
Query optimization is a function of many relational database management systems. The query optimizer attempts to determine the most efficient way to execute a given query by considering the possible query plans.
Generally, the query optimizer cannot be accessed directly by users: once queries are submitted to database server, and parsed by the parser, they are then passed to the query optimizer where optimization occurs. However, some database engines allow guiding the query optimizer with hints.
A query is a request for information from a database. It can be as simple as "finding the address of a person with SS# 123-45-6789," or more complex like "finding the average salary of all the employed married men in California between the ages 30 to 39, that earn less than their wives." Queries results are generated by accessing relevant database data and manipulating it in a way that yields the requested information. Since database structures are complex, in most cases, and especially for not-very-simple queries, the needed data for a query can be collected from a database by accessing it in different ways, through different data-structures, and in different orders. Each different way typically requires different processing time. Processing times of the same query may have large variance, from a fraction of a second to hours, depending on the way selected. The purpose of query optimization, which is an automated process, is to find the way to process a given query in minimum time. The large possible variance in time justifies performing query optimization, though finding the exact optimal way to execute a query, among all possibilities, is typically very complex, time consuming by itself, may be too costly, and often practically impossible. Thus query optimization typically tries to approximate the optimum by comparing several common-sense alternatives to provide in a reasonable time a "good enough" plan which typically does not deviate much from the best possible result.
There is a trade-off between the amount of time spent figuring out the best query plan and the quality of the choice; the optimizer may not choose the best answer on its own. Different qualities of database management systems have different ways of balancing these two. Cost-based query optimizers evaluate the resource footprint of various query plans and use this as the basis for plan selection. These assign an estimated "cost" to each possible query plan, and choose the plan with the smallest cost. Costs are used to estimate the runtime cost of evaluating the query, in terms of the number of I/O operations required, CPU path length, amount of disk buffer space, disk storage service time, and interconnect usage between units of parallelism, and other factors determined from the data dictionary. The set of query plans examined is formed by examining the possible access paths (e.g., primary index access, secondary index access, full file scan) and various relational table join techniques (e.g., merge join, hash join, product join). The search space can become quite large depending on the complexity of the SQL query. There are two types of optimization. These consist of logical optimization—which generates a sequence of relational algebra to solve the query—and physical optimization—which is used to determine the means of carrying out each operation.
Most query optimizers represent query plans as a tree of "plan nodes". A plan node encapsulates a single operation that is required to execute the query. The nodes are arranged as a tree, in which intermediate results flow from the bottom of the tree to the top. Each node has zero or more child nodes—those are nodes whose output is fed as input to the parent node. For example, a join node will have two child nodes, which represent the two join operands, whereas a sort node would have a single child node (the input to be sorted). The leaves of the tree are nodes which produce results by scanning the disk, for example by performing an index scan or a sequential scan.
The performance of a query plan is determined largely by the order in which the tables are joined. For example, when joining 3 tables A, B, C of size 10 rows, 10,000 rows, and 1,000,000 rows, respectively, a query plan that joins B and C first can take several orders-of-magnitude more time to execute than one that joins A and C first. Most query optimizers determine join order via a dynamic programming algorithm pioneered by IBM's System R database project. This algorithm works in two stages:
- First, all ways to access each relation in the query are computed. Every relation in the query can be accessed via a sequential scan. If there is an index on a relation that can be used to answer a predicate in the query, an index scan can also be used. For each relation, the optimizer records the cheapest way to scan the relation, as well as the cheapest way to scan the relation that produces records in a particular sorted order.
- The optimizer then considers combining each pair of relations for which a join condition exists. For each pair, the optimizer will consider the available join algorithms implemented by the DBMS. It will preserve the cheapest way to join each pair of relations, in addition to the cheapest way to join each pair of relations that produces its output according to a particular sort order.
- Then all three-relation query plans are computed, by joining each two-relation plan produced by the previous phase with the remaining relations in the query.
Sort order can avoid a redundant sort operation later on in processing the query. Second, a particular sort order can speed up a subsequent join because it clusters the data in a particular way.
Query planning for nested SQL queries
A SQL query to a modern relational DBMS does more than just selections and joins. In particular, SQL queries often nest several layers of SPJ blocks (Select-Project-Join), by means of group by, exists, and not exists operators. In some cases such nested SQL queries can be flattened into a select-project-join query, but not always. Query plans for nested SQL queries can also be chosen using the same dynamic programming algorithm as used for join ordering, but this can lead to an enormous escalation in query optimization time. So some database management systems use an alternative rule-based approach that uses a query graph model.
One of the hardest problems in query optimization is to accurately estimate the costs of alternative query plans. Optimizers cost query plans using a mathematical model of query execution costs that relies heavily on estimates of the cardinality, or number of tuples, flowing through each edge in a query plan. Cardinality estimation in turn depends on estimates of the selection factor of predicates in the query. Traditionally, database systems estimate selectivities through fairly detailed statistics on the distribution of values in each column, such as histograms. This technique works well for estimation of selectivities of individual predicates. However many queries have conjunctions of predicates such as SELECT COUNT(*) FROM R WHERE R.make='Honda' AND R.model='Accord'. Query predicates are often highly correlated (for example,
make='Honda'), and it is very hard to estimate the selectivity of the conjunct in general. Poor cardinality estimates and uncaught correlation are one of the main reasons why query optimizers pick poor query plans. This is one reason why a database administrator should regularly update the database statistics, especially after major data loads/unloads.
- Chaudhuri, Surajit (1998). "Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems". pp. pages 34–43. doi:10.1145/275487.275492.
- Ioannidis, Yannis (March 1996). "Query optimization". ACM Computing Surveys 28 (1): 121–123. doi:10.1145/234313.234367.
- Selinger, P. G.; Astrahan, M. M.; Chamberlin, D. D.; Lorie, R. A.; Price, T. G. (1979). "Proceedings of the 1979 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data". pp. 23–34. doi:10.1145/582095.582099. ISBN 089791001X.