Database Applications (15-
415)
DBMS Internals- Part IX
Lecture 22, April 12, 2020
Mohammad Hammoud
Today…
Last Session:
DBMS Internals- Part VIII
Algorithms for Relational Operations (Cont’d)
Today’s Session:
DBMS Internals- Part IX
Query Optimization
Announcements:
PS4 is due on April 15
P3 is due on April 18
DBMS Layers
Queries
Query Optimization
and Execution
Relational Operators
Transaction Files and Access Methods
Manager
Recovery
Buffer Management Manager
Lock
Manager Disk Space Management
DB
Outline
A Brief Primer on Query Optimization
Evaluating Query Plans
Relational Algebra Equivalences
Estimating Plan Costs
Enumerating Plans
Cost-Based Query Sub-System
Select *
Queries From Blah B
Where B.blah = blah
Usually there is a
heuristics-based
Query Parser rewriting step before
the cost-based steps.
Query Optimizer
Plan Plan Cost Catalog Manager
Generator Estimator
Schem Statistic
Query Plan Evaluator a s
Query Optimization Steps
Step 1: Queries are parsed into internal forms
(e.g., parse trees)
Step 2: Internal forms are transformed into ‘canonical forms’
(syntactic query optimization)
Step 3: A subset of alternative plans are enumerated
Step 4: Costs for alternative plans are estimated
Step 5: The query evaluation plan with the least estimated
cost is picked
Required Information to Evaluate Queries
To estimate the costs of query plans, the query
optimizer examines the system catalog and retrieves:
Information about the types and lengths of fields
Statistics about the referenced relations
Access paths (indexes) available for relations
In particular, the Schema and Statistics components
in the Catalog Manager are inspected to find a good
enough query evaluation plan
Cost-Based Query Sub-System
Select *
Queries From Blah B
Where B.blah = blah
Usually there is a
heuristics-based
Query Parser rewriting step before
the cost-based steps.
Query Optimizer
Plan Plan Cost Catalog Manager
Generator Estimator
Schem Statistic
Query Plan Evaluator a s
Catalog Manager: The Schema
What kind of information do we store at the Schema?
Information about tables (e.g., table names and
integrity constraints) and attributes (e.g., attribute
names and types)
Information about indices (e.g., index structures)
Information about users
Where do we store such information?
In tables, hence, can be queried like any other tables
For example: Attribute_Cat (attr_name: string,
rel_name: string; type: string; position: integer)
Catalog Manager: Statistics
What would you store at the Statistics component?
NTuples(R): # records for table R
NPages(R): # pages for R
NKeys(I): # distinct key values for index I
INPages(I): # pages for index I
IHeight(I): # levels for I
ILow(I), IHigh(I): range of values for I
...
Such statistics are important for estimating plan
costs and result sizes (to be discussed shortly!)
SQL Blocks
SQL queries are optimized by decomposing them into a
collection of smaller units, called blocks
A block is an SQL query with:
No nesting
Exactly 1 SELECT and 1 FROM clauses
At most 1 WHERE, 1 GROUP BY and 1 HAVING clauses
A typical relational query optimizer concentrates on
optimizing a single block at a time
Translating SQL Queries Into Relational Algebra
Trees
p
select name s
from STUDENT, TAKES
where c-id=‘415’ and
STUDENT.ssn=TAKES.ssn
STUDENT TAKES
An SQL block can be thought of as an algebra expression containing:
A cross-product of all relations in the FROM clause
Selections in the WHERE clause
Projections in the SELECT clause
Remaining operators can be carried out on the result of such
SQL block
Translating SQL Queries Into Relational Algebra
Trees (Cont’d)
p Canonical form p
s
s
STUDENT TAKES STUDENT TAKES
Still the same result!
How can this be guaranteed?
Translating SQL Queries Into Relational Algebra
Trees (Cont’d)
p Canonical form p
s
s
STUDENT TAKES STUDENT TAKES
OBSERVATION: try to perform selections and projections early!
Translating SQL Queries Into Relational Algebra
Trees (Cont’d)
Hash join;
merge join;
nested loops; s Index; seq scan
STUDENT TAKES
How to evaluate a query plan (as opposed to
evaluating an operator)?
Outline
A Brief Primer on Query Optimization
Evaluating Query Plans
Relational Algebra Equivalences
Estimating Plan Costs
Enumerating Plans
Query Evaluation Plans
A query evaluation plan (or simply a plan) consists of an
extended relational algebra tree (or simply a tree)
A plan tree consists of annotations at each node indicating:
The access methods to use for each relation
The implementation method to use for each operator
Consider the following SQL query Q:
SELECT S.sname What is the
FROM Reserves R, corresponding
Sailors S RA of Q?
WHERE R.sid=S.sid AND
R.bid=100 AND
Query Evaluation Plans (Cont’d)
Q can be expressed in relational algebra as follows:
sname( (Reserves Sailors)
bid 100 rating 5 sid sid
A RA Tree: An Extended RA Tree:
(On-the-fly)
sname
sname
bid=100 rating > 5 (On-the-fly)
bid=100 rating > 5
(Simple Nested Loops)
sid=sid sid=sid
Reserves Sailors Sailors (File Scan)
(File Scan) Reserves
Pipelining vs. Materializing
When a query is composed of several operators, the
result of one operator can sometimes be pipelined to
another operator Applied on-the-fly
(On-the-fly)
sname
Pipeline the output of the join into the
selection and projection that follow
bid=100 rating > 5 (On-the-fly)
(Simple Nested Loops)
sid=sid
(File Scan) Reserves Sailors (File Scan)
Pipelining vs. Materializing
When a query is composed of several operators, the
result of one operator can sometimes be pipelined to
another operator Applied on-the-fly
(On-the-fly)
sname
Pipeline the output of the join into the
selection and projection that follow
bid=100 rating > 5 (On-the-fly)
In contrast, a temporary table can be materialized (Simple Nested Loops)
to hold the intermediate result of the join and read sid=sid
back by the selection operation!
(File Scan) Reserves Sailors (File Scan)
Pipelining can significantly save I/O cost!
The I/O Cost of the Q Plan
What is the I/O cost of the following evaluation plan?
(On-the-fly)
sname
bid=100 rating > 5 (On-the-fly)
(Simple Nested Loops)
sid=sid
(File Scan) Reserves Sailors (File Scan)
The cost of the join is 1000 + 1000 * 500 = 501,000 I/Os (assuming page-oriented
Simple NL join)
The selection and projection are done on-the-fly; hence, do not incur additional I/Os
Pushing Selections
How can we reduce the cost of a join?
By reducing the sizes of the input relations!
sname
bid=100 rating > 5
Involves bid in Reserves; Involves rating in Sailors;
hence, “push” ahead of the join! hence, “push” ahead of the join!
sid=sid
Reserves Sailors
Pushing Selections
How can we reduce the cost of a join?
By reducing the sizes of the input relations!
(On-the-fly) (On-the-fly)
sname sname
(Sort-Merge Join)
bid=100 rating > 5 (On-the-fly) sid=sid
(Scan; (Scan;
write to bid=100 rating > 5 write to
(Simple Nested Loops) temp T1) temp T2)
sid=sid
Reserves Sailors
Reserves Sailors
(File Scan) (File Scan)
The I/O Cost of the New Q Plan
What is the I/O cost of the following evaluation plan?
(On-the-fly)
sname
(Sort-Merge Join)
sid=sid
(Scan; (Scan;
write to bid=100 rating > 5 write to
temp T1) temp T2)
Reserves Sailors
Cost of Scanning Reserves = 1000 I/Os Cost of Scanning Sailors = 500 I/Os
Cost of Writing T1 = 10* I/Os (later) Cost of Writing T2 = 250* I/Os (later)
*Assuming 100 boats and uniform distribution of reservations across boats.
*Assuming 10 ratings and uniform distribution over ratings.
The I/O Cost of the New Q Plan
What is the I/O cost of the following evaluation plan?
Merge Cost = 10 + 250 = 260 I/Os (On-the-fly)
sname
Cost = 2×2×10 = 40 I/Os Cost = 2×4×250 = 2000 I/Os
(Sort-Merge Join)
(assuming B = 5) sid=sid (assuming B = 5)
To
so (Scan; (Scan; rt T2
rt write to bid=100 rating > 5 write to so
T1 temp T1) temp T2) To
Reserves Sailors
The I/O Cost of the New Q Plan
What is the I/O cost of the following evaluation plan?
Done on-the-fly, thus, do
(On-the-fly)
sname not incur additional I/Os
(Sort-Merge Join)
sid=sid
(Scan; (Scan;
write to bid=100 rating > 5 write to
temp T1) temp T2)
Reserves Sailors
The I/O Cost of the New Q Plan
What is the I/O cost of the following evaluation plan?
Done on-the-fly, thus, do
Merge Cost = 10 + 250 = 260 I/Os (On-the-fly)
sname not incur additional I/Os
Cost = 2×2×10 = 40 I/Os Cost = 2×4×250 = 2000 I/Os
(Sort-Merge Join)
(assuming B = 5) sid=sid (assuming B = 5)
To
so (Scan; (Scan; rt T2
rt write to bid=100 rating > 5 write to so
T1 temp T1) temp T2) To
Reserves Sailors
Cost of Scanning Reserves = 1000 I/Os Cost of Scanning Sailors = 500 I/Os
Cost of Writing T1 = 10 I/Os (later) Cost of Writing T2 = 250 I/Os (later)
Total Cost = 1000 + 10 + 500 + 250 + 40 + 2000 + 260 = 4060 I/Os
The I/O Costs of the Two Q Plans
(On-the-fly)
(On-the-fly) sname
sname
(Sort-Merge Join)
bid=100 rating > 5 (On-the-fly) sid=sid
(Scan; (Scan;
write to bid=100 rating > 5 write to
temp T1) temp T2)
(Simple Nested Loops)
sid=sid Reserves Sailors
Reserves Sailors
(File Scan) (File Scan)
Total Cost = 501, 000 I/Os Total Cost = 4060 I/Os
Pushing Projections
How can we reduce the cost of a join?
By reducing the sizes of the input relations!
Consider (again) the following plan:
What are the attributes required
sname
from T1 and T2?
Sid from T1
Sid and sname from T2
sid=sid
Hence, as we scan Reserves and
(Scan; (Scan;
write to bid=100 rating > 5 write to Sailors we can also remove
temp T1) temp T2) unwanted columns (i.e., “Push” the
Reserves Sailors
projections ahead of the join)!
Pushing Projections
How can we reduce the cost of a join?
By reducing the sizes of the input relations!
Consider (again) the following plan:
sname
“Push” ahead
the join
The cost after applying
sid=sid this heuristic can become
2000 I/Os (as opposed to
(Scan; (Scan;
write to bid=100 rating > 5 write to 4060 I/Os with only
temp T1) temp T2)
pushing the selection)!
Reserves Sailors
Using Indexes
What if indexes are available on Reserves and Sailors?
(On-the-fly)
sname
rating > 5 (On-the-fly)
(Index Nested Loops,
sid=sid with pipelining )
(Use hash
index; do
not write bid=100 Sailors (Hash index on sid)
result to
temp)
(Clustered hash index on bid) Reserves
With clustered index on bid of Reserves, we get 100,000/100 = 1000 tuples (assuming 100
boats and uniform distribution of reservations across boats)
Since the index is clustered, the 1000 tuples appear consecutively within the same
bucket; thus # of pages = 1000/100 = 10 pages
Using Indexes
What if indexes are available on Reserves and Sailors?
(On-the-fly)
sname
rating > 5 (On-the-fly)
(Index Nested Loops,
sid=sid with pipelining )
(Use hash
index; do
not write bid=100 Sailors (Hash index on sid)
result to
temp)
(Clustered hash index on bid) Reserves
For each selected Reserves tuple, we can retrieve matching Sailors tuples using the hash
index on the sid field
Selected Reserves tuples need not be materialized and the join result can be pipelined!
For each tuple in the join result, we apply rating > 5 and the projection of sname on-the-fly
Using Indexes
What if indexes are available on Reserves and Sailors?
(On-the-fly)
sname
Is it necessary to project out
unwanted columns?
rating > 5 (On-the-fly)
NO, since selection results
are NOT materialized (Index Nested Loops,
sid=sid with pipelining )
(Use hash
index; do
not write bid=100 Sailors (Hash index on sid)
result to
temp)
(Clustered hash index on bid) Reserves
Using Indexes
What if indexes are available on Reserves and Sailors?
(On-the-fly)
sname
Does the hash index on sid
rating > 5 (On-the-fly) need to be clustered?
NO, since there is at most
(Index Nested Loops,
sid=sid with pipelining ) 1 matching Sailors tuple
per a Reserves tuple! Why?
(Use hash
index; do
not write bid=100 Sailors (Hash index on sid)
result to
temp)
(Clustered hash index on bid) Reserves
Using Indexes
What if indexes are available on Reserves and Sailors?
(On-the-fly)
sname
rating > 5 (On-the-fly)
(Index Nested Loops,
sid=sid with pipelining )
(Use hash Cost = 1.2 I/Os (if
index; do
not write bid=100 Sailors (Hash index on sid) A(1)) or 2.2 (if A(2))
result to
temp)
(Clustered hash index on bid) Reserves
Using Indexes
What if indexes are available on Reserves and Sailors?
(On-the-fly)
sname
Why not pushing this selection
ahead of the join?
rating > 5 (On-the-fly)
It would require a scan on Sailors!
(Index Nested Loops,
sid=sid with pipelining )
(Use hash
index; do
not write bid=100 Sailors (Hash index on sid)
result to
temp)
(Clustered hash index on bid) Reserves
The I/O Cost of the New Q Plan
What is the I/O cost of the following evaluation plan?
(On-the-fly)
sname
rating > 5 (On-the-fly)
10 I/Os sid=sid
(Index Nested Loops,
with pipelining )
(Use hash
index; do
Cost = 1.2 I/Os for
not write bid=100 Sailors (Hash index on sid)
result to
temp) 1000 Reserves
(Clustered hash index on bid) Reserves
tuples; hence,
1200 I/Os
Total Cost = 10 + 1200 = 1210 I/Os
Comparing I/O Costs: Recap
(On-the-fly) (On-the-fly)
sname (On-the-fly) sname sname
rating > 5 (On-the-fly)
bid=100 rating > 5 (On-the-fly) (Sort-Merge Join)
sid=sid
(Index Nested
Loops,
(Scan; (Scan; sid=sid with pipelining )
write to bid=100 rating > 5 write to
(Simple Nested temp T1) temp T2) (Hash
Loops) index)
sid=sid
Reserves Sailors bid=100 Sailors (Hash
index
on sid)
Reserves Sailors Reserves
(File Scan) (File Scan)
Total Cost = 501, 000 I/Os Total Cost = 4060 I/Os Total Cost = 1210 I/Os
But, How Can we Ensure Correctness?
sname sname
Canonical form
rating > 5
bid=100 rating > 5
sid=sid
sid=sid
bid=100 Sailors
Reserves Sailors Reserves
Still the same result!
How can this be guaranteed?
Outline
A Brief Primer on Query Optimization
Evaluating Query Plans
Relational Algebra Equivalences
Estimating Plan Costs
Enumerating Plans
Relational Algebra Equivalences
A relational query optimizer uses relational algebra
equivalences to identify many equivalent expressions for a
given query
Two relational algebra expressions over the same set of
input relations are said to be equivalent if they produce the
same result on all relations’ instances
Relational algebra equivalences allow us to:
Push selections and projections ahead of joins
Combine selections and cross-products into joins
Choose different join orders
RA Equivalences: Selections
Two important equivalences involve selections:
1. Cascading of Selections:
c1 ... cn R c1 . . . cn R
Allows us to combine several selections into one selection
OR: Allows us to replace a selection with several smaller selections
2. Commutation of Selections:
c1 c 2 R c 2 c1 R
Allows us to test selection conditions in either order
RA Equivalences: Projections
One important equivalence involves projections:
Cascading of Projections:
a1 R a1 ... an R
This says that successively eliminating columns from a relation
is equivalent to simply eliminating all but the columns retained
by the final projection!
RA Equivalences: Cross-Products and Joins
Two important equivalences involve cross-products
and joins:
1. Commutative Operations:
(R × S) (S × R)
(R S) (S R)
This allows us to choose which relation to be the inner and
which to be the outer!
RA Equivalences: Cross-Products and Joins
Two important equivalences involve cross-products
and joins:
2. Associative Operations:
R × (S × T) (R × S) × T
R (S T) (R S) T
It follows:
R
(S T) (T R) S
This says that regardless of the order in which the relations are
considered, the final result is the same!
This order-independence is fundamental to how a query optimizer
generates alternative query evaluation plans
RA Equivalences: Selections, Projections, Cross
Products and Joins
Selections with Projections:
a ( c ( R )) c ( a ( R ))
This says we can commute a selection with a projection if the
selection involves only attributes retained by the projection!
Selections with Cross-Products:
R c T c ( R S )
This says we can combine a selection with a cross-product to
form a join (as per the definition of a join)!
RA Equivalences: Selections, Projections, Cross
Products and Joins
Selections with Cross-Products and with Joins:
c(RS ) c(R)S
c(R S ) c(R) S
Caveat: The attributes mentioned in c must appear only in R and
NOT in S
This says we can commute a selection with a cross-product or a join
if the selection condition involves only attributes of one of the
arguments to the cross-product or join!
RA Equivalences: Selections, Projections, Cross
Products and Joins
Selections with Cross-Products and with Joins (Cont’d):
c(RS ) (RS )
c1 c2 c3
( ( (RS )))
c1 c2 c3
( (R) (S ))
c1 c2 c3
This says we can push part of the selection condition c ahead of
the cross-product!
This applies to joins as well!
RA Equivalences: Selections, Projections, Cross
Products and Joins
Projections with Cross-Products and with Joins:
a(RS ) (R) (S )
a1 a2
a(R c S ) (R)c (S )
a1 a2
a(R c S ) a( (R)c (S ))
a1 a2
Intuitively, we need to retain only those attributes of R and S that
are either mentioned in the join condition c or included in the set
of attributes a retained by the projection
How to Estimate the Cost of Plans?
Now that correctness is ensured, how can the DBMS
estimate the costs of various plans?
sname sname
Canonical form
rating > 5
bid=100 rating > 5
sid=sid
sid=sid
bid=100 Sailors
Reserves Sailors Reserves
Next Class
Queries
Query Optimization
Continue…
and Execution
Relational Operators
Transaction Files and Access Methods
Manager
Recovery
Buffer Management Manager
Lock
Manager Disk Space Management
DB
