Physical Database Design: External Schemas For Our Database

Physical Database Design
Chapter 16, Part A
Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
Overview
After ER design, schema refinement, and the
definition of views, we have the conceptual and
external schemas for our database.
The next step is to choose indexes, make clustering
decisions, and to refine the conceptual and external
schemas (if necessary) to meet performance goals.
We must begin by understanding the workload:
The most important queries and how often they arise.

The most important updates and how often they arise.
The desired performance for these queries and updates.
Decisions to Make
What indexes should we create?
Which relations should have indexes? What field(s) should
be the search key? Should we build several indexes?
For each index, what kind of an index should it be?

Clustered? Hash/tree?
Should we make changes to the conceptual schema?

Consider alternative normalized schemas? (Remember,

there are many choices in decomposing into BCNF, etc.)
Should we ``undo some decomposition steps and settle
for a lower normal form? (Denormalization.)
Horizontal partitioning, replication, views ...
Index Selection for Joins

When considering a join condition:
Hash index on inner is very good for Index

Nested Loops.
Should be clustered if join column is not key
for inner, and inner tuples need to be
retrieved.
Clustered B+ tree on join column(s) good for
Sort-Merge.
Example 1
SELECT E.ename, D.mgr

FROM Emp E, Dept D
WHERE
D.dname=Toy AND E.dno=D.dno
Hash index on D.dname supports Toy selection.

Given this, index on D.dno is not needed.
Hash index on E.dno allows us to get matching (inner)

Emp tuples for each selected (outer) Dept tuple.
What if WHERE included: `` ... AND E.age=25 ?
Could retrieve Emp tuples using index on E.age, then join
with Dept tuples satisfying dname selection. Comparable to
strategy that used E.dno index.
So, if E.age index is already created, this query provides
much less motivation for adding an E.dno index.
Example 2

FROM Emp E, Dept D
WHERE E.sal BETWEEN 10000 AND 20000
AND
E.hobby=Stamps AND E.dno=D.dno
Clearly, Emp should be the outer relation.

Suggests that we build a hash index on D.dno.
What index should we build on Emp?

B+ tree on E.sal could be used, OR an index on E.hobby

could be used. Only one of these is needed, and which is
better depends upon the selectivity of the conditions.
As a rule of thumb, equality selections more selective
than range selections.
As both examples indicate, our choice of indexes is

guided by the plan(s) that we expect an optimizer to
consider for a query. Have to understand optimizers!
Clustering and Joins

FROM Emp E, Dept D
WHERE D.dname=Toy AND
E.dno=D.dno
Clustering is especially important when accessing

inner tuples in INL.
Should make index on E.dno clustered.
Suppose that the WHERE clause is instead:

E.hobby=Stamps AND E.dno=D.dno
If many employees collect stamps, Sort-Merge join may be
worth considering. A clustered index on D.dno would help.
WHERE
Summary: Clustering is useful whenever many tuples

are to be retrieved.
Tuning the Conceptual Schema

The choice of conceptual schema should be guided by
the workload, in addition to redundancy issues:
We may settle for a 3NF schema rather than BCNF.
Workload may influence the choice we make in
decomposing a relation into 3NF or BCNF.
We may further decompose a BCNF schema!
We might denormalize (i.e., undo a decomposition step), or
we might add fields to a relation.
We might consider horizontal decompositions.
If such changes are made after a database is in use,

called schema evolution; might want to mask some of
these changes from applications by defining views.
Example Schemas
Contracts (Cid, Sid, Jid, Did, Pid, Qty, Val)
Depts (Did, Budget, Report)
Suppliers (Sid, Address)
Parts (Pid, Cost)
Projects (Jid, Mgr)
We will concentrate on Contracts, denoted as
CSJDPQV. The following ICs are given to hold:
JP C, SD P, C is the primary key.
What are the candidate keys for CSJDPQV?

What normal form is this relation schema in?
Settling for 3NF vs BCNF

CSJDPQV can be decomposed into SDP and CSJDQV,
and both relations are in BCNF. (Which FD suggests
that we do this?)
Lossless decomposition, but not dependency-preserving.
Adding CJP makes it dependency-preserving as well.
Suppose that this query is very important:

Find the number of copies Q of part P ordered in contract C.
Requires a join on the decomposed schema, but can be
answered by a scan of the original relation CSJDPQV.
Could lead us to settle for the 3NF schema CSJDPQV.
10
Denormalization
Suppose that the following query is important:
Is the value of a contract less than the budget of the department?
To speed up this query, we might add a field budget B

to Contracts.
This introduces the FD D B wrt Contracts.
Thus, Contracts is no longer in 3NF.
We might choose to modify Contracts thus if the

query is sufficiently important, and we cannot obtain
adequate performance otherwise (i.e., by adding
indexes or by choosing an alternative 3NF schema.)
11
Choice of Decompositions
There are 2 ways to decompose CSJDPQV into BCNF:
SDP and CSJDQV; lossless-join but not dep-preserving.
SDP, CSJDQV and CJP; dep-preserving as well.
The difference between these is really the cost of

enforcing the FD JP C.
2nd decomposition: Index on JP on relation CJP.

CREATE ASSERTION CheckDep
1st:
CHECK ( NOT EXISTS ( SELECT *

FROM PartInfo P, ContractInfo C
WHERE P.sid=C.sid AND P.did=C.did
GROUP BY C.jid, P.pid
HAVING COUNT (C.cid) > 1 ))
12
Choice of Decompositions (Contd.)

The following ICs were given to hold:
JP C, SD P, C is the primary key.
Suppose that, in addition, a given supplier always
charges the same price for a given part: SPQ V.
If we decide that we want to decompose CSJDPQV
into BCNF, we now have a third choice:
Begin by decomposing it into SPQV and CSJDPQ.
Then, decompose CSJDPQ (not in 3NF) into SDP, CSJDQ.
This gives us the lossless-join decomp: SPQV, SDP, CSJDQ.
To preserve JP C, we can add CJP, as before.
Choice: { SPQV, SDP, CSJDQ } or { SDP, CSJDQV } ?
13
Decomposition of a BCNF Relation

Suppose that we choose { SDP, CSJDQV }. This is in
BCNF, and there is no reason to decompose further
(assuming that all known ICs are FDs).
However, suppose that these queries are important:
Find the contracts held by supplier S.
Find the contracts that department D is involved in.
Decomposing CSJDQV further into CS, CD and CJQV

could speed up these queries. (Why?)
On the other hand, the following query is slower:
Find the total value of all contracts held by supplier S.
14
Horizontal Decompositions
Our definition of decomposition: Relation is replaced
by a collection of relations that are projections. Most
important case.
Sometimes, might want to replace relation by a
collection of relations that are selections.
Each new relation has same schema as the original, but a

subset of the rows.
Collectively, new relations contain all rows of the original.
Typically, the new relations are disjoint.
15
Horizontal Decompositions (Contd.)

Suppose that contracts with value > 10000 are subject
to different rules. This means that queries on
Contracts will often contain the condition val>10000.
One way to deal with this is to build a clustered B+
tree index on the val field of Contracts.
A second approach is to replace contracts by two new
relations: LargeContracts and SmallContracts, with
the same attributes (CSJDPQV).
Performs like index on such queries, but no index overhead.
Can build clustered indexes on other attributes, in addition!
16
Masking Conceptual Schema Changes

CREATE VIEW Contracts(cid, sid,
AS SELECT *
FROM LargeContracts
UNION
SELECT *
FROM SmallContracts
jid, did, pid, qty, val)
The replacement of Contracts by LargeContracts and

SmallContracts can be masked by the view.
However, queries with the condition val>10000 must
be asked wrt LargeContracts for efficient execution:
so users concerned with performance have to be
aware of the change.
17
Tuning Queries and Views

If a query runs slower than expected, check if an
index needs to be re-built, or if statistics are too old.
Sometimes, the DBMS may not be executing the plan
you had in mind. Common areas of weakness:
Selections involving null values.

Selections involving arithmetic or string expressions.
Selections involving OR conditions.
Lack of evaluation features like index-only strategies or
certain join methods or poor size estimation.
Check the plan that is being used! Then adjust the

choice of indexes or rewrite the query/view.
18
Rewriting SQL Queries

Complicated by interaction of:
NULLs, duplicates, aggregation, subqueries.
Guideline: Use only one query block, if possible.

SELECT DISTINCT *
FROM Sailors S
WHERE S.sname IN
(SELECT Y.sname
FROM YoungSailors Y)
SELECT DISTINCT S.*

FROM Sailors S,
YoungSailors Y
WHERE S.sname = Y.sname
Not always possible ...
SELECT *
FROM Sailors S
WHERE S.sname IN
(SELECT DISTINCT Y.sname
FROM YoungSailors Y)
SELECT S.*
FROM Sailors S,
YoungSailors Y
WHERE S.sname = Y.sname
19
The Notorious COUNT Bug

SELECT dname FROM Department D
WHERE D.num_emps >
(SELECT COUNT(*) FROM Employee E
WHERE D.building = E.building)
CREATE VIEW Temp (empcount, building) AS
SELECT COUNT(*), E.building
FROM Employee E
GROUP BY E.building
SELECT
FROM
WHERE
AND
dname
Department D,Temp
D.building = Temp.building
D.num_emps > Temp.empcount;
What happens when Employee is empty??

20
Summary on Unnesting Queries

DISTINCT at top level: Can ignore duplicates.
Can sometimes infer DISTINCT at top level! (e.g.

subquery clause matches at most one tuple)
DISTINCT in subquery w/o DISTINCT at top:

Hard to convert.
Subqueries inside OR: Hard to convert.
ALL subqueries: Hard to convert.
EXISTS and ANY are just like IN.
Aggregates in subqueries: Tricky.

Good news: Some systems now rewrite under
the covers (e.g. DB2).
21
More Guidelines for Query Tuning

Minimize the use of DISTINCT: dont need it if
duplicates are acceptable, or if answer contains a key.
Minimize the use of GROUP BY and HAVING:
SELECT MIN (E.age)
FROM Employee E
GROUP BY E.dno
HAVING E.dno=102
SELECT MIN (E.age)

FROM Employee E
WHERE E.dno=102
Consider DBMS use of index when writing arithmetic

expressions: E.age=2*D.age will benefit from index on
E.age, but might not benefit from index on D.age!
22
Guidelines for Query Tuning (Contd.)

Avoid using intermediate
relations:
SELECT E.dno, AVG(E.sal)
FROM Emp E, Dept D
WHERE E.dno=D.dno
AND D.mgrname=Joe
vs.
GROUP BY
E.dno
SELECT * INTO Temp

FROM Emp E, Dept D
WHERE E.dno=D.dno
AND D.mgrname=Joe
and
SELECT T.dno, AVG(T.sal)
FROM Temp T
GROUP BY T.dno
Does not materialize the intermediate reln Temp.

If there is a dense B+ tree index on <dno, sal>, an
index-only plan can be used to avoid retrieving Emp
tuples in the second query!
23
Summary
Database design consists of several tasks:
requirements analysis, conceptual design, schema
refinement, physical design and tuning.
In general, have to go back and forth between these tasks to
refine a database design, and decisions in one task can
influence the choices in another task.
Understanding the nature of the workload for the

application, and the performance goals, is essential to
developing a good design.
What are the important queries and updates? What

attributes/relations are involved?
24
Summary
The conceptual schema should be refined by
considering performance criteria and workload:
May choose 3NF or lower normal form over BCNF.
May choose among alternative decompositions into BCNF
(or 3NF) based upon the workload.
May denormalize, or undo some decompositions.
May decompose a BCNF relation further!
May choose a horizontal decomposition of a relation.
Importance of dependency-preservation based upon the
dependency to be preserved, and the cost of the IC check.
Can add a relation to ensure dep-preservation (for 3NF,
not BCNF!); or else, can check dependency using a join.
25
Summary (Contd.)
Over time, indexes have to be fine-tuned (dropped,
created, re-built, ...) for performance.
Should determine the plan used by the system, and adjust
the choice of indexes appropriately.
System may still not find a good plan:

Only left-deep plans considered!
Null values, arithmetic conditions, string expressions, the
use of OR s, etc. can confuse an optimizer.
So, may have to rewrite the query/view:

Avoid nested queries, temporary relations, complex

conditions, and operations like DISTINCT and GROUP BY .
26

Physical Database Design: External Schemas For Our Database

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Physical Database Design: External Schemas For Our Database

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Physical Database Design: External Schemas For Our Database

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Physical Database Design

Chapter 16, Part A

Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke

The most important queries and how often they arise.

Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke

For each index, what kind of an index should it be?

Should we make changes to the conceptual schema?

Consider alternative normalized schemas? (Remember,

Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke

Index Selection for Joins

Hash index on inner is very good for Index

Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke

SELECT E.ename, D.mgr

D.dname=Toy AND E.dno=D.dno

Hash index on D.dname supports Toy selection.

Hash index on E.dno allows us to get matching (inner)

Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke

SELECT E.ename, D.mgr

E.hobby=Stamps AND E.dno=D.dno

Clearly, Emp should be the outer relation.

What index should we build on Emp?

B+ tree on E.sal could be used, OR an index on E.hobby

As both examples indicate, our choice of indexes is

Clustering and Joins

Clustering is especially important when accessing

Suppose that the WHERE clause is instead:

Summary: Clustering is useful whenever many tuples

Tuning the Conceptual Schema

If such changes are made after a database is in use,

Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke

What are the candidate keys for CSJDPQV?

Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke

Settling for 3NF vs BCNF

Suppose that this query is very important:

Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke

To speed up this query, we might add a field budget B

We might choose to modify Contracts thus if the

The difference between these is really the cost of

2nd decomposition: Index on JP on relation CJP.

CHECK ( NOT EXISTS ( SELECT *

Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke

Choice of Decompositions (Contd.)

Choice: { SPQV, SDP, CSJDQ } or { SDP, CSJDQV } ?

Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke

Decomposition of a BCNF Relation

Decomposing CSJDQV further into CS, CD and CJQV

Find the total value of all contracts held by supplier S.

Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke

Each new relation has same schema as the original, but a

Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke

Horizontal Decompositions (Contd.)

Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke

Masking Conceptual Schema Changes

jid, did, pid, qty, val)

The replacement of Contracts by LargeContracts and

Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke

Tuning Queries and Views

Selections involving null values.

Check the plan that is being used! Then adjust the