Checking your Primary Key
Users may see cases where their query is slower than expected, in the belief they are ordering or filtering by a primary key. In this article we show how users can confirm the key is used, highlighting common reasons its not.Create table
Consider the following simple table:toUnixTimestamp(timestamp) as the second entry.
Populate data
Populate this table with 100m rows:Basic filtering
If we filter by code we can see the number of rows scanned in the output. -49.15 thousand. Notice how this is a subset of the total 100m rows.
EXPLAIN indexes=1 clause:
8012 is a fraction of the total 12209. The section higlighted below, confirms use of the primary key code.
Filtering on keys later in an ordering key will not be as efficient as filtering on those that are earlier in the tuple. For reasons why, see here
Multi-key filtering
Suppose we filter, bycode and timestamp:
87 granules.
Using keys in sorting
ClickHouse can also exploit ordering keys for efficient sorting. Specifically, When the optimize_read_in_order setting is enabled (by default), the ClickHouse server uses the table index and reads the data in order of the ORDER BY key. This allows us to avoid reading all data in case of specified LIMIT. So, queries on big data with small limits are processed faster. See here and here for further details. This, however, requires alignment of the keys used. For example, consider this query:EXPLAIN pipeline:
MergeTreeSelect(pool: ReadPool, algorithm: Thread) here does not indicate the use of the optimization but rather a standard read. This is caused by our table ordering key using toUnixTimestamp(Timestamp) NOT timestamp. Rectifying this mismatch addresses the issue: