Hello Gavin, That's what I did with the first one-to-one table to create the unique SEQ field mapping to each item/category combination. The problem is on the TRANSACTION table, where there are multiple instances of each item/category. If I just put a auto_increment primary key on that table, I'd get a unique TRANSACTION ID, which is not what I want. I want to populate the transaction table with the new integer seq key created in the first table.
I guess I should have stated that my overall objective here is to eventually drop the VARCHAR itemid and category id fields from the transaction table, leaving only the new item sequence id (plus transid) as the primary key. There are many tables throughout the schema that do this, and I would be replacing them all. It's just that this is the largest table, and the correlated update is taking a long time, and I'm looking for a better solution (if one exists). thanks. -Hank On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Gavin Towey <gto...@ffn.com> wrote: > Do you know that if you create seq column on the original table as an > auto_increment primary key, it will fill in the numbers automatically? > There's no need to create the values on another table and update with a > join. > > Regards, > Gavin Towey > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hank [mailto:hes...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 4:35 PM > To: mysql@lists.mysql.com > Subject: Speeding up a pretty simple correlated update query > > Hello All, > I have a legacy application which was written using a compound primary key > of an item number (non unique) along with a category ID. The combination of > the item number and category ID make the records unique. > > I am in the process of replacing the compound (VARCHAR) keys with an > unique integer key in these tables. > > So I have created an item_seq table and assigned a unique sequence number > to > each compound key -- it looks like this (all tables are myisam tables, and > mysql version 5.0) > > desc item_seq; > +-----------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ > | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | > +-----------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ > | seq | int(10) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment | > | itemid | char(11) | NO | MUL | | | > | category | char(4) | NO | | | | > +-----------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ > > I also have my main transactional table with about 180,000,000 rows -- it > looks like this: > > desc item_trans; > > +-------------+-----------------------+------+-----+---------------------+-------+ > | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | > Extra | > > +-------------+-----------------------+------+-----+---------------------+-------+ > | seq | int(10) unsigned | NO | MUL | | > | > | itemid | char(11) | NO | PRI | | > | > | category | char(4) | NO | PRI | | > | > | transid | int(10) | NO | PRI | | > | > > Currently the "seq" field is null for the entire table. So of course, I > want to update the main transaction table with the new sequence number. > > So I've disabled all the keys on the "item_trans" table -- since I am > updating every row, it wouldn't (shouldn't) be using the index anyway. > > Here is my correlated update query: > > update item_trans i, item_seq is > set i.seq=is.seq > where is.itemid=i.itemid and is.category=i.category; > > If I run an explain on the select version of the update, this is what I > get: > > > +----+-------------+----------+--------+---------------+--------+---------+------------------------------------------------+-----------+-------+ > | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | > ref | rows | Extra | > > +----+-------------+----------+--------+---------------+--------+---------+------------------------------------------------+-----------+-------+ > | 1 | SIMPLE | item_trans | ALL | PRIMARY | NULL | NULL > | NULL | 178948797 | | > | 1 | SIMPLE | item_seq | eq_ref | itemid | itemid | 20 | > g.item_trans.itemid,g.item_trans.category | 1 | > | > > +----+-------------+----------+--------+---------------+--------+---------+------------------------------------------------+-----------+-------+ > > ... which is exactly what I would expect it to do. Update every record of > the item_trans table, and do a full index lookup on the items_seq table. > > SO... I've been running this query to update item_trans, and it's been > running for 5 days now. > > I've also tried running this with the primary key index on the item_trans > table (but not the seq index), and that ran slower in my initial tests. > > Are there any faster ways to update 180 million records with a correlated > update query? And I'm fairly certain that trying to do this in PHP > one-record at a time would take much longer than a SQL solution. > > Thanks, > > -Hank > > The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and > confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) > named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this > communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, > please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the > original message. >
