Mar
07
2019
--

Reducing High CPU on MySQL: a Case Study

CPU Usage after query tuning

In this blog post, I want to share a case we worked on a few days ago. I’ll show you how we approached the resolution of a MySQL performance issue and used Percona Monitoring and Management PMM to support troubleshooting. The customer had noticed a linear high CPU usage in one of their MySQL instances and was not able to figure out why as there was no much traffic hitting the app. We needed to reduce the high CPU usage on MySQL. The server is a small instance:

Models | 6xIntel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2430 0 @ 2.20GHz
10GB RAM

This symptom can be caused by various different reasons. Let’s see how PMM can be used to troubleshoot the issue.

CPU

The original issue - CPU usage at almost 100% during application use

It’s important to understand where the CPU time is being consumed: user space, system space, iowait, and so on. Here we can see that CPU usage was hitting almost 100% and the majority of the time was being spent on user space. In other words, the time the CPU was executing user code, such as MySQL. Once we determined that the time was being spent on user space, we could discard other possible issues. For example, we could eliminate the possibility that a high amount of threads were competing for CPU resources, since that would cause an increase in context switches, which in turn would be taken care of by the kernel – system space.

With that we decided to look into MySQL metrics.

MySQL

Thread activity graph in PMM for MySQL

Queries per second

As expected, there weren’t a lot of threads running—10 on average—and MySQL wasn’t being hammered with questions/transactions. It was running from 500 to 800 QPS (queries per second). Next step was to check the type of workload that was running on the instance:

All the commands are of a SELECT type, in red in this graph

In red we can see that almost all commands are SELECTS. With that in mind, we checked the handlers using 

SHOW STATUS LIKE 'Handler%'

 to verify if those selects were doing an index scan, a full table scan or what.

Showing that the query was a full table scan

Blue in this graph represents

Handler_read_rnd_next

 , which is the counter MySQL increments every time it reads a row when it’s doing a full table scan. Bingo!!! Around 350 selects were reading 2.5 million rows. But wait—why was this causing CPU issues rather than IO issues? If you refer to the first graph (CPU graph) we cannot see iowait.

That is because the data was stored in the InnoDB Buffer Pool, so instead of having to read those 2.5M rows per second from disk, it was fetching them from memory. The stress had moved from disk to CPU. Now that we identified that the issue had been caused by some queries or query, we went to QAN to verify the queries and check their status:

identifying the long running query in QAN

First query, a

SELECT

  on table 

store.clients

 was responsible for 98% of the load and was executing in 20+ seconds.

The initial query load

EXPLAIN confirmed our suspicions. The query was accessing the table using type ALL, which is the last type we want as it means “Full Table Scan”. Taking a look into the fingerprint of the query, we identified that it was a simple query:

Fingerprint of query
Indexes on table did not include a key column

The query was filtering clients based on the status field

SELECT * FROM store.clients WHERE status = ?

 As shown in the indexes, that column was not indexed. Talking with the customer, this turned out to be a query that was introduced as part of a new software release.

From that point, we were confident that we had identified the problem. There could be more, but this particular query was definitely hurting the performance of the server. We decided to add an index and also sent an annotation to PMM, so we could refer back to the graphs to check when the index has been added, check if CPU usage had dropped, and also check Handler_read_rnd_next.

To run the alter we decided to use pt-online-schema-change as it was a busy table, and the tool has safeguards to prevent the situation from becoming even worse. For example, we wanted to pause or even abort the alter in the case of the number of Threads_Running exceeding a certain threshold. The threshold is controlled by

--max-load

  (25 by default) and

--critical-load

  (50 by default):

pmm-admin annotate "Started ALTER store.clients ADD KEY (status)" && \
pt-online-schema-change --alter "ADD KEY (status)" --execute u=root,D=store,t=clients && \
pmm-admin annotate "Finished ALTER store.clients ADD KEY (status)"
Your annotation was successfully posted.
No slaves found. See --recursion-method if host localhost.localdomain has slaves.
Not checking slave lag because no slaves were found and --check-slave-lag was not specified.
Operation, tries, wait:
analyze_table, 10, 1
copy_rows, 10, 0.25
create_triggers, 10, 1
drop_triggers, 10, 1
swap_tables, 10, 1
update_foreign_keys, 10, 1
Altering `store`.`clients`...
Creating new table...
Created new table store._clients_new OK.
Altering new table...
Altered `store`.`_clients_new` OK.
2019-02-22T18:26:25 Creating triggers...
2019-02-22T18:27:14 Created triggers OK.
2019-02-22T18:27:14 Copying approximately 4924071 rows...
Copying `store`.`clients`: 7% 05:46 remain
Copying `store`.`clients`: 14% 05:47 remain
Copying `store`.`clients`: 22% 05:07 remain
Copying `store`.`clients`: 30% 04:29 remain
Copying `store`.`clients`: 38% 03:59 remain
Copying `store`.`clients`: 45% 03:33 remain
Copying `store`.`clients`: 52% 03:06 remain
Copying `store`.`clients`: 59% 02:44 remain
Copying `store`.`clients`: 66% 02:17 remain
Copying `store`.`clients`: 73% 01:50 remain
Copying `store`.`clients`: 79% 01:23 remain
Copying `store`.`clients`: 87% 00:53 remain
Copying `store`.`clients`: 94% 00:24 remain
2019-02-22T18:34:15 Copied rows OK.
2019-02-22T18:34:15 Analyzing new table...
2019-02-22T18:34:15 Swapping tables...
2019-02-22T18:34:27 Swapped original and new tables OK.
2019-02-22T18:34:27 Dropping old table...
2019-02-22T18:34:32 Dropped old table `store`.`_clients_old` OK.
2019-02-22T18:34:32 Dropping triggers...
2019-02-22T18:34:32 Dropped triggers OK.
Successfully altered `store`.`clients`.
Your annotation was successfully posted.

Results

MySQL Handlers after query tuning MySQL query throughput after query tuning
Query analysis by EXPLAIN in PMM after tuning

As we can see, above, CPU usage dropped to less than 25%, which is 1/4 of the previous usage level. Handler_read_rnd_next dropped and we can’t even see it once pt-osc has finished. We had a small increase on Handler_read_next as expected because now MySQL is using the index to resolve the WHERE clause. One interesting outcome is that the instance was able to increase it’s QPS by 2x after the index was added as CPU/Full Table Scan was no longer limiting performance. On average, query time has dropped from 20s to only 661ms.

Summary:

  1. Applying the correct troubleshooting steps to your problems is crucial:
    a) Understand what resources have been saturated.
    b) Understand what if anything is causing an error.
    c) From there you can divert into the areas that are related to that resource and start to narrow down the issue.
    d) Tackle the problems bit by bit.
  2. Having the right tools for the job key for success. PMM is a great example of a tool that can help you quickly identify, drill in, and fix bottlenecks.
  3. Have realistic load tests. In this case, they had tested the new release on a concurrency level that was not like their production
  4. By identifying the culprit query we were able to:
    a.) Drop average query time from 20s to 661ms
    b.) Increase QPS by 2x
    c.) Reduce the usage of CPU to 1/4 of its level prior to our intervention

Disclosure: For security reasons, sensitive information, such as database, table, column names have been modified and graphs recreated to simulate a similar problem.

May
07
2015
--

MySQL indexing 101: a challenging single-table query

We discussed in an earlier post how to design indexes for many types of queries using a single table. Here is a real-world example of the challenges you will face when trying to optimize queries: two similar queries, but one is performing a full table scan while the other one is using the index we specially created for these queries. Bug or expected behavior? Read on!

Our two similar queries

# Q1
mysql> explain select col1, col2 from t where ts >= '2015-04-30 00:00:00';
+----+-------------+---------------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+---------+-------------+
| id | select_type | table         | type | possible_keys | key  | key_len | ref  | rows    | Extra       |
+----+-------------+---------------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+---------+-------------+
|  1 | SIMPLE      | t             | ALL  | ts            | NULL | NULL    | NULL | 4111896 | Using where |
+----+-------------+---------------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+---------+-------------+
# Q2
mysql> explain select count(*) from t where ts >='2015-04-30 00:00:00';
+----+-------------+---------------+-------+---------------+--------------+---------+------+---------+--------------------------+
| id | select_type | table         | type  | possible_keys | key          | key_len | ref  | rows    | Extra                    |
+----+-------------+---------------+-------+---------------+--------------+---------+------+---------+--------------------------+
|  1 | SIMPLE      | t             | range | ts            | ts           | 5       | NULL | 1809458 | Using where; Using index |
+----+-------------+---------------+-------+---------------+--------------+---------+------+---------+--------------------------+

Q1 runs a full-table scan while Q2 is using the index on ts, which by the way is covering – See Using index in the Extra field. Why such different execution plans?

Let’s try to understand what happens with Q1.

This is a query with a single inequality on the ts field and we have an index on ts. The optimizer tries to see if this index is usable (possible_keys field), this is all very logical. Now if we look at the rows field for Q1 and Q2, we can see that the index would allow us to only read 45% of the records (1.8M out of 4.1M). Granted, this is not excellent but this should be much better than a full table scan anyway, right?

If you think so, read carefully what’s next. Because this assumption is simply not correct!

Estimating the cost of an execution plan (simplified)

First of all, the optimizer does not know if data or indexes are in memory or need to be read from disk, it will simply assume everything is on disk. What it does know however is that sequential reads are much faster than random reads.

So let’s execute Q1 with the index on ts. Step 1 is to perform a range scan on this index to identify the 1.8M records that match the condition: this is a sequential read, so this is quite fast. However now step 2 is to get the col1 and col2 fields for each record that match the condition. The index provides the primary key value for each matching record so we will have to run a primary key lookup for each matching record.

Here is the issue: 1.8M primary key lookups is equivalent to 1.8M random reads, therefore this will take a lot of time. Much more time than sequentially reading the full table (which means doing a full scan of the primary key because we are using InnoDB here).

Contrast that with how Q2 can be executed with the index on ts. Step 1 is the same: identify the 1.8M matching records. But the difference is: there’s no step 2! That’s why we call this index a ‘covering index’: we don’t need to run point queries on the primary key to get extra fields. So this time, using the index on ts is much more efficient than reading the full table (which again would mean that we would do a full-table scan of the primary key).

Now there is one more thing to understand: a full-table scan is a sequential operation when you think about it from a logical point of view, however the InnoDB pages are certainly not stored sequentially on disk. So at the disk level, a full table is more like multiple random reads than a single large sequential read.

However it is still much faster than a very large number or point query and it’s easy to understand why: when you read a 16KB page for a full table scan, all records will be used. While when you read a 16KB page for a random read, you might only use a single record. So in the worst case, reading 1.8M records will require 1.8M random reads while reading the full table with 4M records will only require 100K random reads – the full table scan is still an order of magnitude faster.

Optimizing our query

Now that we’ve understood why the optimizer chose a full table scan for Q1, is there a way to make it run faster by using an index? If we can create a covering index, we will no longer need the expensive primary key lookups. Then the optimizer is very likely to choose this index over a full table scan. Creating such a covering index is easy:

ALTER TABLE t ADD INDEX idx_ts_col1_col2 (ts, col1, col2);

Some of you may object that because we have an inequality on ts, the other columns cannot be used. This would be true if we had conditions on col1 or col2 in the WHERE clause, but that does not apply here since we’re only adding these extra columns to get a covering index.

Conclusion

Understanding how indexes can be used to filter, sort or cover is paramount to be able to optimize queries, even simple ones. Understanding (even approximately) how a query is run according to a given execution plan is also very useful. Otherwise you will sometimes be puzzled by the decisions made by the optimizer.

Also note that beginning in MySQL 5.7, the cost model can be tuned. This can help the optimizer make better decisions: for instance random reads are far cheaper on fast storage than on regular disks.

The post MySQL indexing 101: a challenging single-table query appeared first on MySQL Performance Blog.

Powered by WordPress | Theme: Aeros 2.0 by TheBuckmaker.com