Query Optimization

Query Optimization
● Introduction
● Transformation of Relational Expressions
● Catalog Information for Cost Estimation
● Statistical Information for Cost Estimation
● Cost-based optimization
● Dynamic Programming for Choosing Evaluation
Plans
● Materialized views

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.2 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Introduction

● Alternative ways of evaluating a given query

● Equivalent expressions
● Different algorithms for each operation

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.3 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Introduction (Cont.)
● An evaluation plan defines exactly what algorithm is used for each
operation, and how the execution of the operations is coordinated.

● Find out how to view query execution plans on your favorite

database
Database System Concepts - 6th 1.4 ©Silberschatz, Korth and
 Introduction (Cont.)

● Cost difference between evaluation plans for a query can be

enormous
● E.g. seconds vs. days in some cases
● Steps in cost-based query optimization
1. Generate logically equivalent expressions using equivalence
rules
2. Annotate resultant expressions to get alternative query plans
3. Choose the cheapest plan based on estimated cost
● Estimation of plan cost based on:
● Statistical information about relations. Examples:
4 number of tuples, number of distinct values for an attribute
● Statistics estimation for intermediate results
4 to compute cost of complex expressions
● Cost formulae for algorithms, computed using statistics

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.5 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

Generating Equivalent Expressions
 Transformation of Relational Expressions

● Two relational algebra expressions are said to be equivalent if

the two expressions generate the same set of tuples on every
legal database instance
● Note: order of tuples is irrelevant
● we don’t care if they generate different results on databases
that violate integrity constraints
● In SQL, inputs and outputs are multisets of tuples
● Two expressions in the multiset version of the relational
algebra are said to be equivalent if the two expressions
generate the same multiset of tuples on every legal
database instance.
● An equivalence rule says that expressions of two forms are
equivalent
● Can replace expression of first form by second, or vice
versa

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.7 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Equivalence Rules

1. Conjunctive selection operations can be deconstructed into a

sequence of individual selections.

2. Selection operations are commutative.

3. Only the last in a sequence of projection operations is

needed, the others can be omitted.

4. Selections can be combined with Cartesian products and

theta joins.
a. σθ(E1 X E2) = E1 θ E2
b. σθ1(E1 θ2 E2) = E1 θ1∧ θ2 E2

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.8 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Equivalence Rules (Cont.)
5. Theta-join operations (and natural joins) are commutative.
E1 θ E2 = E2 θ E1
6. (a) Natural join operations are associative:
(E1 E2) E3 = E1 (E2 E3)

(b) Theta joins are associative in the following manner:

(E1 θ1 E2) θ2∧ θ3 E3 = E1 θ1∧ θ3 (E2 θ2 E3)

where θ2 involves attributes from only E2 and E3.

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.9 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Pictorial Depiction of Equivalence Rules

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.10 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Equivalence Rules (Cont.)
7. The selection operation distributes over the theta join operation
under the following two conditions:
(a) When all the attributes in θ0 involve only the attributes of one
of the expressions (E1) being joined.

σθ0(E1 θ E2) = (σθ0(E1)) θ E2

(b) When θ 1 involves only the attributes of E1 and θ2 involves

only the attributes of E2.
σθ1∧θ2 (E1 θ E2) = (σθ1(E1)) θ (σθ2 (E2))

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.11 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Equivalence Rules (Cont.)
8. The projection operation distributes over the theta join operation
as follows:
(a) if θ involves only attributes from L1 ∪ L2:
∏ L1 ∪ L2 ( E1 θ E2 ) = (∏ L1 ( E1 ) θ (∏ L2 ( E2 ))
)
(b) Consider a join E1 θ E2.
● Let L1 and L2 be sets of attributes from E1 and E2,
respectively.
● Let L3 be attributes of E1 that are involved in join condition θ,
but are not in L1 ∪ L2, and
● let L4 be attributes of E2 that are involved in join condition θ,
but are not in L1 ∪ L2.

∏ L ∪ L ( E1
1 2 θ E2 ) = ∏ L ∪ L ((∏ L ∪ L ( E1 ))
1 2 1 3 θ (∏ L ∪ L ( E 2 ))
2 4

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.12 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Equivalence Rules (Cont.)

9. The set operations union and intersection are commutative

E1 ∪ E2 = E 2 ∪ E1
E1 ∩ E2 = E 2 ∩ E1
9. (set difference is not commutative).
10. Set union and intersection are associative.
(E1 ∪ E2) ∪ E3 = E1 ∪ (E2 ∪ E3)
(E1 ∩ E2) ∩ E3 = E1 ∩ (E2 ∩ E3)
9. The selection operation distributes over ∪, ∩ and –.
σθ (E1 – E2) = σθ (E1) – σθ(E2)
and similarly for ∪ and ∩ in place of –
Also: σθ (E1 – E2) = σθ(E1) – E2
and similarly for ∩ in place of –, but not for ∪
12. The projection operation distributes over union
ΠL(E1 ∪ E2) = (ΠL(E1)) ∪ (ΠL(E2))
Database System Concepts - 6th 1.13 ©Silberschatz, Korth and
 Exercise
● Create equivalence rules involving
● The group by/aggregation operation
● Left outer join operation

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.14 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Transformation Example: Pushing Selections

● Query: Find the names of all instructors in the Music

department, along with the titles of the courses that they teach
● Πname, title(σdept_name= “Music”
(instructor (teaches Πcourse_id, title (course))))
● Transformation using rule 7a.

● Πname, title((σdept_name= “Music”(instructor))

(teaches Πcourse_id, title (course)))
● Performing the selection as early as possible reduces the size
of the relation to be joined.

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.15 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Transformation Example: Pushing Projections

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.16 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Example with Multiple Transformations
● Query: Find the names of all instructors in the Music
department who have taught a course in 2009, along with the
titles of the courses that they taught
● Πname, title(σdept_name= “Music”∧year = 2009
(instructor (teaches Πcourse_id, title (course))))
● Transformation using join associatively (Rule 6a):
● Πname, title(σdept_name= “Music”∧gear = 2009
((instructor teaches) Πcourse_id, title (course)))
● Second form provides an opportunity to apply the “perform
selections early” rule, resulting in the subexpression
σdept_name = “Music” (instructor) σ year = 2009 (teaches)

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.17 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Multiple Transformations (Cont.)

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.18 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Transformation Example: Pushing Projections

● Consider: Πname, title(σdept_name= “Music” (instructor) teaches)

Πcourse_id, title (course))))
● When we compute
(σdept_name = “Music” (instructor teaches)

we obtain a relation whose schema is:

(ID, name, dept_name, salary, course_id, sec_id, semester, year)
● Push projections using equivalence rules 8a and 8b; eliminate
unneeded attributes from intermediate results to get:
Πname, title(Πname, course_id (
σdept_name= “Music” (instructor) teaches))
Πcourse_id, title (course))))
● Performing the projection as early as possible reduces the size
of the relation to be joined.

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.19 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Join Ordering Example
● For all relations r1, r2, and r3,
(r1 r2) r3 = r1 (r2 r3 )
(Join Associativity)
● If r2 r3 is quite large and r1 r2 is small, we choose

(r1 r2) r3
so that we compute and store a smaller temporary relation.

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.20 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Join Ordering Example (Cont.)
● Consider the expression
Πname, title(σdept_name= “Music” (instructor) teaches)
Πcourse_id, title (course))))
● Could compute teaches Πcourse_id, title (course) first, and
join result with
σdept_name= “Music” (instructor)
but the result of the first join is likely to be a large relation.
● Only a small fraction of the university’s instructors are likely to
be from the Music department
● it is better to compute
σdept_name= “Music” (instructor) teaches
first.

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.21 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Enumeration of Equivalent Expressions

● Query optimizers use equivalence rules to systematically generate

expressions equivalent to the given expression
● Can generate all equivalent expressions as follows:
● Repeat
4 apply all applicable equivalence rules on every subexpression of
every equivalent expression found so far
4 add newly generated expressions to the set of equivalent
expressions
Until no new equivalent expressions are generated above
● The above approach is very expensive in space and time
● Two approaches
4 Optimized plan generation based on transformation rules
4 Special case approach for queries with only selections,
projections and joins

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.22 ©Silberschatz, Korth and

 Implementing Transformation Based
Optimization
● Space requirements reduced by sharing common sub-expressions:
● when E1 is generated from E2 by an equivalence rule, usually only the top
level of the two are different, subtrees below are the same and can be
shared using pointers
4 E.g. when applying join commutativity

E E
1 2
● Same sub-expression may get generated multiple times
4 Detect duplicate sub-expressions and share one copy
● Time requirements are reduced by not generating all expressions
● Dynamic programming

Database System Concepts - 6th 1.23 ©Silberschatz, Korth and