COUNT(*) or MAX(id) - which is faster?How to efficiently count the number of keys/properties of an object in...
Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?
COUNT(*) or MAX(id) - which is faster?
Manga about a female worker who got dragged into another world together with this high school girl and she was just told she's not needed anymore
LWC and complex parameters
What do you call something that goes against the spirit of the law, but is legal when interpreting the law to the letter?
What causes the sudden spool-up sound from an F-16 when enabling afterburner?
Why is my log file so massive? 22gb. I am running log backups
Doomsday-clock for my fantasy planet
Is every set a filtered colimit of finite sets?
Symmetry in quantum mechanics
What happens when a metallic dragon and a chromatic dragon mate?
Pristine Bit Checking
Re-submission of rejected manuscript without informing co-authors
How can I fix this gap between bookcases I made?
How to move the player while also allowing forces to affect it
Is there a way to make member function NOT callable from constructor?
Can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun?
Why did the Germans forbid the possession of pet pigeons in Rostov-on-Don in 1941?
Why was the "bread communication" in the arena of Catching Fire left out in the movie?
What does it exactly mean if a random variable follows a distribution
Should the British be getting ready for a no-deal Brexit?
Was there ever an axiom rendered a theorem?
What do the Banks children have against barley water?
Is it legal to have the "// (c) 2019 John Smith" header in all files when there are hundreds of contributors?
COUNT(*) or MAX(id) - which is faster?
How to efficiently count the number of keys/properties of an object in JavaScript?Which “href” value should I use for JavaScript links, “#” or “javascript:void(0)”?Which is faster: Stack allocation or Heap allocationSQL select only rows with max value on a columnWhy are elementwise additions much faster in separate loops than in a combined loop?Why is it faster to process a sorted array than an unsorted array?Why does Python code run faster in a function?Is < faster than <=?Which is faster: while(1) or while(2)?Why is [] faster than list()?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
i have a web server, that has my own messaging system implemented.
I am at phase, when i need to create API, that checks, if the user has new message(s).
My DB table is simple:
ID - Auto Increment, Primary Key (Bigint)
Sender - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table
Recipient - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table
Message - Varchar (256) //UTF8 BIN
I am considering to make an api, that will estimate, if there are new messages for given user. I am thinking to use one of these methods:
A) Select count(*) of messages where sender or recipient is me.
(if this number > previous number, I have new message)
B) Select max(ID) of messages where sender or recipient is me.
(if max(ID) > than previous number, I have new message)
My question is: Can i calculate somehow, what method will consume less server resources? Or is there some article? Maybe another method i not mentioned?
php mysql performance
edited 2 hours ago
Peter Cordes
134k18203342
asked 7 hours ago
FeHoraFeHora
535
add a comment |
i have a web server, that has my own messaging system implemented.
I am at phase, when i need to create API, that checks, if the user has new message(s).
My DB table is simple:
ID - Auto Increment, Primary Key (Bigint)
Sender - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table
Recipient - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table
Message - Varchar (256) //UTF8 BIN
I am considering to make an api, that will estimate, if there are new messages for given user. I am thinking to use one of these methods:
A) Select count(*) of messages where sender or recipient is me.
(if this number > previous number, I have new message)
B) Select max(ID) of messages where sender or recipient is me.
(if max(ID) > than previous number, I have new message)
My question is: Can i calculate somehow, what method will consume less server resources? Or is there some article? Maybe another method i not mentioned?
php mysql performance
edited 2 hours ago
Peter Cordes
134k18203342
asked 7 hours ago
FeHoraFeHora
535
2
I think you would be better off by adding a timestamp column and checking against that value to see if there are newer records.
– Dharman
7 hours ago
Either querying a timestamp or the ID, useMAX()on that column, and make sure it's indexed with(user_id, timestamp).
– The Impaler
7 hours ago
@Dharman i was thinking of it. But it costs extra DB space, also i am not sure if it will be faster than one of my methods. I am storing the simple number (of current messages) in usernames table
– FeHora
6 hours ago
1
Calculate? No idea. But you can measure it. Fire off a few thousands of each query and watch machine metrics (cpu%, mem%, load average, etc.)
– Sergio Tulentsev
6 hours ago
1
While there is a good answer to this question below, I suspect you might be optimizing on something that turns out not to be important. And unless you anticipate having literally millions of messages, I wouldn't worry about disk space, especially because the timestamp is small compared to your other fields. If you add timestamps, your table will be about 5MB larger for each million messages. That's really nothing.
– Jerry
6 hours ago
add a comment |
i have a web server, that has my own messaging system implemented.
I am at phase, when i need to create API, that checks, if the user has new message(s).
My DB table is simple:
ID - Auto Increment, Primary Key (Bigint)
Sender - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table
Recipient - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table
Message - Varchar (256) //UTF8 BIN
I am considering to make an api, that will estimate, if there are new messages for given user. I am thinking to use one of these methods:
A) Select count(*) of messages where sender or recipient is me.
(if this number > previous number, I have new message)
B) Select max(ID) of messages where sender or recipient is me.
(if max(ID) > than previous number, I have new message)
My question is: Can i calculate somehow, what method will consume less server resources? Or is there some article? Maybe another method i not mentioned?
php mysql performance
edited 2 hours ago
Peter Cordes
134k18203342
asked 7 hours ago
FeHoraFeHora
535
i have a web server, that has my own messaging system implemented.
I am at phase, when i need to create API, that checks, if the user has new message(s).
My DB table is simple:
ID - Auto Increment, Primary Key (Bigint)
Sender - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table
Recipient - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table
Message - Varchar (256) //UTF8 BIN
I am considering to make an api, that will estimate, if there are new messages for given user. I am thinking to use one of these methods:
A) Select count(*) of messages where sender or recipient is me.
(if this number > previous number, I have new message)
B) Select max(ID) of messages where sender or recipient is me.
(if max(ID) > than previous number, I have new message)
My question is: Can i calculate somehow, what method will consume less server resources? Or is there some article? Maybe another method i not mentioned?
php mysql performance
php mysql performance
edited 2 hours ago
Peter Cordes
134k18203342
asked 7 hours ago
FeHoraFeHora
535
edited 2 hours ago
Peter Cordes
134k18203342
asked 7 hours ago
FeHoraFeHora
535
edited 2 hours ago
Peter Cordes
134k18203342
edited 2 hours ago
Peter Cordes
134k18203342
edited 2 hours ago
Peter Cordes
134k18203342
134k18203342
asked 7 hours ago
FeHoraFeHora
535
asked 7 hours ago
FeHoraFeHora
535
asked 7 hours ago
FeHoraFeHora
535
535
2
I think you would be better off by adding a timestamp column and checking against that value to see if there are newer records.
– Dharman
7 hours ago
Either querying a timestamp or the ID, useMAX()on that column, and make sure it's indexed with(user_id, timestamp).
– The Impaler
7 hours ago
@Dharman i was thinking of it. But it costs extra DB space, also i am not sure if it will be faster than one of my methods. I am storing the simple number (of current messages) in usernames table
– FeHora
6 hours ago
1
Calculate? No idea. But you can measure it. Fire off a few thousands of each query and watch machine metrics (cpu%, mem%, load average, etc.)
– Sergio Tulentsev
6 hours ago
1
While there is a good answer to this question below, I suspect you might be optimizing on something that turns out not to be important. And unless you anticipate having literally millions of messages, I wouldn't worry about disk space, especially because the timestamp is small compared to your other fields. If you add timestamps, your table will be about 5MB larger for each million messages. That's really nothing.
– Jerry
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2
I think you would be better off by adding a timestamp column and checking against that value to see if there are newer records.
– Dharman
7 hours ago
Either querying a timestamp or the ID, useMAX()on that column, and make sure it's indexed with(user_id, timestamp).
– The Impaler
7 hours ago
@Dharman i was thinking of it. But it costs extra DB space, also i am not sure if it will be faster than one of my methods. I am storing the simple number (of current messages) in usernames table
– FeHora
6 hours ago
1
Calculate? No idea. But you can measure it. Fire off a few thousands of each query and watch machine metrics (cpu%, mem%, load average, etc.)
– Sergio Tulentsev
6 hours ago
1
While there is a good answer to this question below, I suspect you might be optimizing on something that turns out not to be important. And unless you anticipate having literally millions of messages, I wouldn't worry about disk space, especially because the timestamp is small compared to your other fields. If you add timestamps, your table will be about 5MB larger for each million messages. That's really nothing.
– Jerry
6 hours ago
2
2
I think you would be better off by adding a timestamp column and checking against that value to see if there are newer records.
– Dharman
7 hours ago
I think you would be better off by adding a timestamp column and checking against that value to see if there are newer records.
– Dharman
7 hours ago
Either querying a timestamp or the ID, use
MAX() on that column, and make sure it's indexed with (user_id, timestamp).– The Impaler
7 hours ago
Either querying a timestamp or the ID, use
MAX() on that column, and make sure it's indexed with (user_id, timestamp).– The Impaler
7 hours ago
@Dharman i was thinking of it. But it costs extra DB space, also i am not sure if it will be faster than one of my methods. I am storing the simple number (of current messages) in usernames table
– FeHora
6 hours ago
@Dharman i was thinking of it. But it costs extra DB space, also i am not sure if it will be faster than one of my methods. I am storing the simple number (of current messages) in usernames table
– FeHora
6 hours ago
1
1
Calculate? No idea. But you can measure it. Fire off a few thousands of each query and watch machine metrics (cpu%, mem%, load average, etc.)
– Sergio Tulentsev
6 hours ago
Calculate? No idea. But you can measure it. Fire off a few thousands of each query and watch machine metrics (cpu%, mem%, load average, etc.)
– Sergio Tulentsev
6 hours ago
1
1
While there is a good answer to this question below, I suspect you might be optimizing on something that turns out not to be important. And unless you anticipate having literally millions of messages, I wouldn't worry about disk space, especially because the timestamp is small compared to your other fields. If you add timestamps, your table will be about 5MB larger for each million messages. That's really nothing.
– Jerry
6 hours ago
While there is a good answer to this question below, I suspect you might be optimizing on something that turns out not to be important. And unless you anticipate having literally millions of messages, I wouldn't worry about disk space, especially because the timestamp is small compared to your other fields. If you add timestamps, your table will be about 5MB larger for each million messages. That's really nothing.
– Jerry
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
In MySQL InnoDB, SELECT COUNT(*) WHERE secondary_index = ? is an expensive operation and when the user has a lot of messages, this query might take a long time. Even when using an index, the engine still needs to count all matching records.
On the other hand, SELECT MAX(id) WHERE secondary_index = ? can deliver the highest id in that index very efficiently and runs in constant speed by doing a so-called loose index scan.
If you want to understand why, consider looking up the "B-Tree+" data structure which InnoDB uses to organise its data.
I suggest you go with SELECT MAX(id), if the requirement is only to check if there are new messages (and not the count of them).
Also, if you rely on the message count you might open a gap for race conditions. What if the user deletes a message and receives a new one between two polling intervals?
answered 6 hours ago
KaiiKaii
15.7k22951
refer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/130780/mysql-count-performance
– Kaii
6 hours ago
1
"SELECT MAX(id) will always use the primary index" - yeah, except for the cases when there's awhereon an unindexed field.
– Sergio Tulentsev
6 hours ago
@SergioTulentsev i forgot to mention in my main post, sender and recipient are foreign keys to user-hash (ID) - primary key in users table. So it will be indexed always.
– FeHora
6 hours ago
3
If there's an index ona, thenSELECT MAX(id) FROM tbl WHERE a=constantuses a so-called loose index scan. Those are almost miraculously fast.SELECT COUNT(*) FROM tbl WHERE a=constantdoes a tight index scan, which is not as fast.
– O. Jones
6 hours ago
1
@FeHora i strongly suggest to setup some sort of test environment, a database with generated records for you to play with.
– Kaii
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
To have the information that someone has new messages - do exactly that. Update the field in users table (I'm assuming that's the name) when a new message is recorded in the system. You have the recipient's ID, that's all you need. You can create an after insert trigger (assumption: there's users2messages table) that updates users table with a boolean flag indicating there's a message.
This approach is by far faster than counting indexes, be the index primary or secondary. When the user performs an action, you can update the users table with has_messages = 0, when a new message arrives - you update the table with has_messages = 1. It's simple, it works, it scales and using triggers to maintain it makes it easy and seamless.
I'm sure there will be nay-sayers who don't like triggers, you can do it manually at the point of associating a user with a new message.
answered 6 hours ago
MjhMjh
1,98911112
triggers aside, looking up a row using the PK and also reading it to check the boolean is still more expensive than executing a single loose index scan. It gets worse when you also add a WHERE clause to check the boolean flag because of the low cardinality even if you index that field. Sorry to tell you you that, but you have a misunderstanding there.
– Kaii
6 hours ago
@Mjh i know about that.. but it's definitely more expensive than my suggested methods, because it contains (at least) 1x update + 1x select
– FeHora
5 hours ago
1
@KaiiSELECT has_messages FROM users WHERE id = 1;is the fastest query there is. It's aneq_refwhich is infinitely faster than counting a number of records in the table. The boolean field is not in theWHEREclause, the primary key is. Please, assume better next time. In regards to updating the table: the update is fast as well, it handles a single row located using the primary key. If the field is already containing the value that you're updating to, no actual disk I/O occurs and there's a minimal performance penalty. Much less than counting the records. You can measure.
– Mjh
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55581114%2fcount-or-maxid-which-is-faster%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In MySQL InnoDB, SELECT COUNT(*) WHERE secondary_index = ? is an expensive operation and when the user has a lot of messages, this query might take a long time. Even when using an index, the engine still needs to count all matching records.
On the other hand, SELECT MAX(id) WHERE secondary_index = ? can deliver the highest id in that index very efficiently and runs in constant speed by doing a so-called loose index scan.
If you want to understand why, consider looking up the "B-Tree+" data structure which InnoDB uses to organise its data.
I suggest you go with SELECT MAX(id), if the requirement is only to check if there are new messages (and not the count of them).
Also, if you rely on the message count you might open a gap for race conditions. What if the user deletes a message and receives a new one between two polling intervals?
answered 6 hours ago
KaiiKaii
15.7k22951
refer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/130780/mysql-count-performance
– Kaii
6 hours ago
1
"SELECT MAX(id) will always use the primary index" - yeah, except for the cases when there's awhereon an unindexed field.
– Sergio Tulentsev
6 hours ago
@SergioTulentsev i forgot to mention in my main post, sender and recipient are foreign keys to user-hash (ID) - primary key in users table. So it will be indexed always.
– FeHora
6 hours ago
3
If there's an index ona, thenSELECT MAX(id) FROM tbl WHERE a=constantuses a so-called loose index scan. Those are almost miraculously fast.SELECT COUNT(*) FROM tbl WHERE a=constantdoes a tight index scan, which is not as fast.
– O. Jones
6 hours ago
1
@FeHora i strongly suggest to setup some sort of test environment, a database with generated records for you to play with.
– Kaii
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
In MySQL InnoDB, SELECT COUNT(*) WHERE secondary_index = ? is an expensive operation and when the user has a lot of messages, this query might take a long time. Even when using an index, the engine still needs to count all matching records.
On the other hand, SELECT MAX(id) WHERE secondary_index = ? can deliver the highest id in that index very efficiently and runs in constant speed by doing a so-called loose index scan.
If you want to understand why, consider looking up the "B-Tree+" data structure which InnoDB uses to organise its data.
I suggest you go with SELECT MAX(id), if the requirement is only to check if there are new messages (and not the count of them).
Also, if you rely on the message count you might open a gap for race conditions. What if the user deletes a message and receives a new one between two polling intervals?
answered 6 hours ago
KaiiKaii
15.7k22951
refer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/130780/mysql-count-performance
– Kaii
6 hours ago
1
"SELECT MAX(id) will always use the primary index" - yeah, except for the cases when there's awhereon an unindexed field.
– Sergio Tulentsev
6 hours ago
@SergioTulentsev i forgot to mention in my main post, sender and recipient are foreign keys to user-hash (ID) - primary key in users table. So it will be indexed always.
– FeHora
6 hours ago
3
If there's an index ona, thenSELECT MAX(id) FROM tbl WHERE a=constantuses a so-called loose index scan. Those are almost miraculously fast.SELECT COUNT(*) FROM tbl WHERE a=constantdoes a tight index scan, which is not as fast.
– O. Jones
6 hours ago
1
@FeHora i strongly suggest to setup some sort of test environment, a database with generated records for you to play with.
– Kaii
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
In MySQL InnoDB, SELECT COUNT(*) WHERE secondary_index = ? is an expensive operation and when the user has a lot of messages, this query might take a long time. Even when using an index, the engine still needs to count all matching records.
On the other hand, SELECT MAX(id) WHERE secondary_index = ? can deliver the highest id in that index very efficiently and runs in constant speed by doing a so-called loose index scan.
If you want to understand why, consider looking up the "B-Tree+" data structure which InnoDB uses to organise its data.
I suggest you go with SELECT MAX(id), if the requirement is only to check if there are new messages (and not the count of them).
Also, if you rely on the message count you might open a gap for race conditions. What if the user deletes a message and receives a new one between two polling intervals?
answered 6 hours ago
KaiiKaii
15.7k22951
In MySQL InnoDB, SELECT COUNT(*) WHERE secondary_index = ? is an expensive operation and when the user has a lot of messages, this query might take a long time. Even when using an index, the engine still needs to count all matching records.
On the other hand, SELECT MAX(id) WHERE secondary_index = ? can deliver the highest id in that index very efficiently and runs in constant speed by doing a so-called loose index scan.
If you want to understand why, consider looking up the "B-Tree+" data structure which InnoDB uses to organise its data.
I suggest you go with SELECT MAX(id), if the requirement is only to check if there are new messages (and not the count of them).
Also, if you rely on the message count you might open a gap for race conditions. What if the user deletes a message and receives a new one between two polling intervals?
answered 6 hours ago
KaiiKaii
15.7k22951
edited 6 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
KaiiKaii
15.7k22951
answered 6 hours ago
KaiiKaii
15.7k22951
answered 6 hours ago
KaiiKaii
15.7k22951
15.7k22951
refer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/130780/mysql-count-performance
– Kaii
6 hours ago
1
"SELECT MAX(id) will always use the primary index" - yeah, except for the cases when there's awhereon an unindexed field.
– Sergio Tulentsev
6 hours ago
@SergioTulentsev i forgot to mention in my main post, sender and recipient are foreign keys to user-hash (ID) - primary key in users table. So it will be indexed always.
– FeHora
6 hours ago
3
If there's an index ona, thenSELECT MAX(id) FROM tbl WHERE a=constantuses a so-called loose index scan. Those are almost miraculously fast.SELECT COUNT(*) FROM tbl WHERE a=constantdoes a tight index scan, which is not as fast.
– O. Jones
6 hours ago
1
@FeHora i strongly suggest to setup some sort of test environment, a database with generated records for you to play with.
– Kaii
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
refer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/130780/mysql-count-performance
– Kaii
6 hours ago
1
"SELECT MAX(id) will always use the primary index" - yeah, except for the cases when there's awhereon an unindexed field.
– Sergio Tulentsev
6 hours ago
@SergioTulentsev i forgot to mention in my main post, sender and recipient are foreign keys to user-hash (ID) - primary key in users table. So it will be indexed always.
– FeHora
6 hours ago
3
If there's an index ona, thenSELECT MAX(id) FROM tbl WHERE a=constantuses a so-called loose index scan. Those are almost miraculously fast.SELECT COUNT(*) FROM tbl WHERE a=constantdoes a tight index scan, which is not as fast.
– O. Jones
6 hours ago
1
@FeHora i strongly suggest to setup some sort of test environment, a database with generated records for you to play with.
– Kaii
6 hours ago
refer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/130780/mysql-count-performance
– Kaii
6 hours ago
refer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/130780/mysql-count-performance
– Kaii
6 hours ago
1
1
"SELECT MAX(id) will always use the primary index" - yeah, except for the cases when there's a
where on an unindexed field.– Sergio Tulentsev
6 hours ago
"SELECT MAX(id) will always use the primary index" - yeah, except for the cases when there's a
where on an unindexed field.– Sergio Tulentsev
6 hours ago
@SergioTulentsev i forgot to mention in my main post, sender and recipient are foreign keys to user-hash (ID) - primary key in users table. So it will be indexed always.
– FeHora
6 hours ago
@SergioTulentsev i forgot to mention in my main post, sender and recipient are foreign keys to user-hash (ID) - primary key in users table. So it will be indexed always.
– FeHora
6 hours ago
3
3
If there's an index on
a, then SELECT MAX(id) FROM tbl WHERE a=constant uses a so-called loose index scan. Those are almost miraculously fast. SELECT COUNT(*) FROM tbl WHERE a=constant does a tight index scan, which is not as fast.– O. Jones
6 hours ago
If there's an index on
a, then SELECT MAX(id) FROM tbl WHERE a=constant uses a so-called loose index scan. Those are almost miraculously fast. SELECT COUNT(*) FROM tbl WHERE a=constant does a tight index scan, which is not as fast.– O. Jones
6 hours ago
1
1
@FeHora i strongly suggest to setup some sort of test environment, a database with generated records for you to play with.
– Kaii
6 hours ago
@FeHora i strongly suggest to setup some sort of test environment, a database with generated records for you to play with.
– Kaii
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
To have the information that someone has new messages - do exactly that. Update the field in users table (I'm assuming that's the name) when a new message is recorded in the system. You have the recipient's ID, that's all you need. You can create an after insert trigger (assumption: there's users2messages table) that updates users table with a boolean flag indicating there's a message.
This approach is by far faster than counting indexes, be the index primary or secondary. When the user performs an action, you can update the users table with has_messages = 0, when a new message arrives - you update the table with has_messages = 1. It's simple, it works, it scales and using triggers to maintain it makes it easy and seamless.
I'm sure there will be nay-sayers who don't like triggers, you can do it manually at the point of associating a user with a new message.
answered 6 hours ago
MjhMjh
1,98911112
triggers aside, looking up a row using the PK and also reading it to check the boolean is still more expensive than executing a single loose index scan. It gets worse when you also add a WHERE clause to check the boolean flag because of the low cardinality even if you index that field. Sorry to tell you you that, but you have a misunderstanding there.
– Kaii
6 hours ago
@Mjh i know about that.. but it's definitely more expensive than my suggested methods, because it contains (at least) 1x update + 1x select
– FeHora
5 hours ago
1
@KaiiSELECT has_messages FROM users WHERE id = 1;is the fastest query there is. It's aneq_refwhich is infinitely faster than counting a number of records in the table. The boolean field is not in theWHEREclause, the primary key is. Please, assume better next time. In regards to updating the table: the update is fast as well, it handles a single row located using the primary key. If the field is already containing the value that you're updating to, no actual disk I/O occurs and there's a minimal performance penalty. Much less than counting the records. You can measure.
– Mjh
5 hours ago
add a comment |
To have the information that someone has new messages - do exactly that. Update the field in users table (I'm assuming that's the name) when a new message is recorded in the system. You have the recipient's ID, that's all you need. You can create an after insert trigger (assumption: there's users2messages table) that updates users table with a boolean flag indicating there's a message.
This approach is by far faster than counting indexes, be the index primary or secondary. When the user performs an action, you can update the users table with has_messages = 0, when a new message arrives - you update the table with has_messages = 1. It's simple, it works, it scales and using triggers to maintain it makes it easy and seamless.
I'm sure there will be nay-sayers who don't like triggers, you can do it manually at the point of associating a user with a new message.
answered 6 hours ago
MjhMjh
1,98911112
triggers aside, looking up a row using the PK and also reading it to check the boolean is still more expensive than executing a single loose index scan. It gets worse when you also add a WHERE clause to check the boolean flag because of the low cardinality even if you index that field. Sorry to tell you you that, but you have a misunderstanding there.
– Kaii
6 hours ago
@Mjh i know about that.. but it's definitely more expensive than my suggested methods, because it contains (at least) 1x update + 1x select
– FeHora
5 hours ago
1
@KaiiSELECT has_messages FROM users WHERE id = 1;is the fastest query there is. It's aneq_refwhich is infinitely faster than counting a number of records in the table. The boolean field is not in theWHEREclause, the primary key is. Please, assume better next time. In regards to updating the table: the update is fast as well, it handles a single row located using the primary key. If the field is already containing the value that you're updating to, no actual disk I/O occurs and there's a minimal performance penalty. Much less than counting the records. You can measure.
– Mjh
5 hours ago
add a comment |
To have the information that someone has new messages - do exactly that. Update the field in users table (I'm assuming that's the name) when a new message is recorded in the system. You have the recipient's ID, that's all you need. You can create an after insert trigger (assumption: there's users2messages table) that updates users table with a boolean flag indicating there's a message.
This approach is by far faster than counting indexes, be the index primary or secondary. When the user performs an action, you can update the users table with has_messages = 0, when a new message arrives - you update the table with has_messages = 1. It's simple, it works, it scales and using triggers to maintain it makes it easy and seamless.
I'm sure there will be nay-sayers who don't like triggers, you can do it manually at the point of associating a user with a new message.
answered 6 hours ago
MjhMjh
1,98911112
To have the information that someone has new messages - do exactly that. Update the field in users table (I'm assuming that's the name) when a new message is recorded in the system. You have the recipient's ID, that's all you need. You can create an after insert trigger (assumption: there's users2messages table) that updates users table with a boolean flag indicating there's a message.
This approach is by far faster than counting indexes, be the index primary or secondary. When the user performs an action, you can update the users table with has_messages = 0, when a new message arrives - you update the table with has_messages = 1. It's simple, it works, it scales and using triggers to maintain it makes it easy and seamless.
I'm sure there will be nay-sayers who don't like triggers, you can do it manually at the point of associating a user with a new message.
answered 6 hours ago
MjhMjh
1,98911112
answered 6 hours ago
MjhMjh
1,98911112
answered 6 hours ago
MjhMjh
1,98911112
answered 6 hours ago
MjhMjh
1,98911112
1,98911112
triggers aside, looking up a row using the PK and also reading it to check the boolean is still more expensive than executing a single loose index scan. It gets worse when you also add a WHERE clause to check the boolean flag because of the low cardinality even if you index that field. Sorry to tell you you that, but you have a misunderstanding there.
– Kaii
6 hours ago
@Mjh i know about that.. but it's definitely more expensive than my suggested methods, because it contains (at least) 1x update + 1x select
– FeHora
5 hours ago
1
@KaiiSELECT has_messages FROM users WHERE id = 1;is the fastest query there is. It's aneq_refwhich is infinitely faster than counting a number of records in the table. The boolean field is not in theWHEREclause, the primary key is. Please, assume better next time. In regards to updating the table: the update is fast as well, it handles a single row located using the primary key. If the field is already containing the value that you're updating to, no actual disk I/O occurs and there's a minimal performance penalty. Much less than counting the records. You can measure.
– Mjh
5 hours ago
add a comment |
triggers aside, looking up a row using the PK and also reading it to check the boolean is still more expensive than executing a single loose index scan. It gets worse when you also add a WHERE clause to check the boolean flag because of the low cardinality even if you index that field. Sorry to tell you you that, but you have a misunderstanding there.
– Kaii
6 hours ago
@Mjh i know about that.. but it's definitely more expensive than my suggested methods, because it contains (at least) 1x update + 1x select
– FeHora
5 hours ago
1
@KaiiSELECT has_messages FROM users WHERE id = 1;is the fastest query there is. It's aneq_refwhich is infinitely faster than counting a number of records in the table. The boolean field is not in theWHEREclause, the primary key is. Please, assume better next time. In regards to updating the table: the update is fast as well, it handles a single row located using the primary key. If the field is already containing the value that you're updating to, no actual disk I/O occurs and there's a minimal performance penalty. Much less than counting the records. You can measure.
– Mjh
5 hours ago
triggers aside, looking up a row using the PK and also reading it to check the boolean is still more expensive than executing a single loose index scan. It gets worse when you also add a WHERE clause to check the boolean flag because of the low cardinality even if you index that field. Sorry to tell you you that, but you have a misunderstanding there.
– Kaii
6 hours ago
triggers aside, looking up a row using the PK and also reading it to check the boolean is still more expensive than executing a single loose index scan. It gets worse when you also add a WHERE clause to check the boolean flag because of the low cardinality even if you index that field. Sorry to tell you you that, but you have a misunderstanding there.
– Kaii
6 hours ago
@Mjh i know about that.. but it's definitely more expensive than my suggested methods, because it contains (at least) 1x update + 1x select
– FeHora
5 hours ago
@Mjh i know about that.. but it's definitely more expensive than my suggested methods, because it contains (at least) 1x update + 1x select
– FeHora
5 hours ago
1
1
@Kaii
SELECT has_messages FROM users WHERE id = 1; is the fastest query there is. It's an eq_ref which is infinitely faster than counting a number of records in the table. The boolean field is not in the WHERE clause, the primary key is. Please, assume better next time. In regards to updating the table: the update is fast as well, it handles a single row located using the primary key. If the field is already containing the value that you're updating to, no actual disk I/O occurs and there's a minimal performance penalty. Much less than counting the records. You can measure.– Mjh
5 hours ago
@Kaii
SELECT has_messages FROM users WHERE id = 1; is the fastest query there is. It's an eq_ref which is infinitely faster than counting a number of records in the table. The boolean field is not in the WHERE clause, the primary key is. Please, assume better next time. In regards to updating the table: the update is fast as well, it handles a single row located using the primary key. If the field is already containing the value that you're updating to, no actual disk I/O occurs and there's a minimal performance penalty. Much less than counting the records. You can measure.– Mjh
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55581114%2fcount-or-maxid-which-is-faster%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
I think you would be better off by adding a timestamp column and checking against that value to see if there are newer records.
– Dharman
7 hours ago
Either querying a timestamp or the ID, use
MAX()on that column, and make sure it's indexed with(user_id, timestamp).– The Impaler
7 hours ago
@Dharman i was thinking of it. But it costs extra DB space, also i am not sure if it will be faster than one of my methods. I am storing the simple number (of current messages) in usernames table
– FeHora
6 hours ago
1
Calculate? No idea. But you can measure it. Fire off a few thousands of each query and watch machine metrics (cpu%, mem%, load average, etc.)
– Sergio Tulentsev
6 hours ago
1
While there is a good answer to this question below, I suspect you might be optimizing on something that turns out not to be important. And unless you anticipate having literally millions of messages, I wouldn't worry about disk space, especially because the timestamp is small compared to your other fields. If you add timestamps, your table will be about 5MB larger for each million messages. That's really nothing.
– Jerry
6 hours ago