News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:See Twitter's SQL. by amarcus on Sunday July 06, 2008 @10:03PM (#238210)
these queries are not optimised at all. first of all, every page gives of MySQL warnings...and second, there are alot of SELECT count(*)...instead of SELECT count(1). This may not seem like it would increase speed alot but given the number of users and the amount of times that query is executed, it will speed up twitter by a bit. There are a few other things that i have noticed...they should really clean up their sql
Re:See Twitter's SQL. by sharksandwich on Sunday July 06, 2008 @10:26PM (#238230)
The search page looks particularly sloppy. Searching 'john' yields 27 queries, including a number that look redundant

Grabbing the users

SELECT * FROM `users` WHERE (users.id in (<list of user ids>))

followed by queries for each user id in that list

SELECT * FROM `users` WHERE (`users`.`id` = <user id>)

Maybe there's a reason for doing that, but if there is, I can't think of it

Re:See Twitter's SQL. by gaius on Monday July 07, 2008 @03:04AM (#238392)
Most likely whoever wrote it cut their teeth on MySQL 4.0 or earlier which didn't have subselects.

They don't do this so much now, but back in the day (mid-late 90s) MySQL documentation was notorious for glossing over why they didn't have features. Foreign keys were "too slow". Transactions were "too slow", etc. If you need to rollback, store the previous values in memory in your own code, they told everyone (then quietly added the feature and changed the docs).

[deleted]
Re:See Twitter's SQL. by senthil_rajasek on Sunday July 06, 2008 @11:26PM (#238270)
Why roundtrip to the db for the same user info again? I have seen this type of behavior in data access "frameworks"... the optimization would be to reduce the roundtrip to the db...
Re:See Twitter's SQL. by jrockway on Monday July 07, 2008 @12:45AM (#238328)
s/frameworks/poorly-written frameworks/.

It's really amazing what poorly-written frameworks have done to the minds of people. When I teach classes on DBIx::Class (the Perl ORM), my students are shocked that $foo->bar->baz actually generates the SQL to follow the two relations as opposed to the "easy" "get list of results, then run query on each result, then return an array...". Actually, $foo->bar->baz, by itself, doesn't touch the database. The database is only contacted when you actually try to get information out of the result object. (And of course, the database is only queried once.)

Re:See Twitter's SQL. by there on Sunday July 06, 2008 @11:09PM (#238260)
Re:See Twitter's SQL. by jey on Monday July 07, 2008 @12:37AM (#238319)
Good, because that would be really pathetic to not perform the simplest dead code elimination.
Re:See Twitter's SQL. by amarcus on Monday July 07, 2008 @12:39AM (#238322)
Only for MyISAM tables...its a different story with Innodb: http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/12/01/count-for-inn...
Re:See Twitter's SQL. by neilc on Monday July 07, 2008 @01:57AM (#238364)
Not AFAICS; count( * ) and count( 1 ) are trivially equivalent, and this doesn't depend on the storage engine being used. It is true that count( * ) without a WHERE clause is much faster in MyISAM than in Innodb (or Postgres), but that is a different optimization (count( * ) => metadata lookup, not count( 1 ) => count( * )).
Re:See Twitter's SQL. by fendale on Monday July 07, 2008 @07:20AM (#238491)
Mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but count() and count(1) mean basically the same thing and are equivalent.

There is a nice optimisation in MYISAM table that makes count() from table <with no where clause> almost instant as its stored as meta-data on the table - in InnoDB, Oracle or Postgres this optimisation doesn't exist ...

Re:See Twitter's SQL. by wallflower on Sunday July 06, 2008 @10:17PM (#238225)
Boy this demystifies the social animal that is twitter. The test database is very small.