Skip to content

# State of InnDB Online DDL in MySQL 5.6.9-RC (good news included)

MySQL InnoDB New Features Review December 18, 2012December 18, 2012

5.6.9-RC is out, and I was curious to see how the online DDL has improved since my 5.6.8 review. I also owe James Day this review, since he came up with results inconsistent with my own.

We both agreed the dataset I was using was too small, but I got similar results even on larger scale. Then some time passed, and 5.6.9 was announced.

So for the 5.6.9 test I took one of my real tables on production. It is not extremely large: it’s a ~ 300MB .ibd file, in the following format:

>     mysql> show create table tbl \G

>     CREATE TABLE `tbl` (
>       `id` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
>       `a` varchar(255) CHARACTER SET utf8 NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
>       `w` smallint(11) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
>       `d` timestamp NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP ON UPDATE CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>       `icount` smallint(5) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
>       PRIMARY KEY (`id`) KEY_BLOCK_SIZE=8,
>       UNIQUE KEY `u_idx` (`a`,`w`,`d`) KEY_BLOCK_SIZE=8,
>       KEY `d` (`d`) KEY_BLOCK_SIZE=8
>     ) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=16960441 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 ROW_FORMAT=COMPRESSED KEY_BLOCK_SIZE=16

Got some 2.5M rows in the table; desktop machine, 64 bit Linux, mysqlsandbox.

I have crossed several DDL statements with several DML statements. The DDL statements in this test are (ALTER TABLE…):

- ROW_FORMAT=COMPACT
- AUTO_INCREMENT=16960441
- ADD INDEX (w)
- DROP INDEX w
- ADD COLUMN c CHAR(1) NOT NULL
- DROP COLUMN c

The DML statements are:

1. select max(id) from test.tbl; — this queries the AUTO_INCREMENT value, which is of course a PRIMARY KEY
2. select min(d) from test.tbl; — there is an index on d, and normal execution plan is to optimize table away and just use the index
3. select min(icount) from test.tbl; — there is no index on icount, and full table scan is required
4. update test.tbl set d = d + interval 1 second where id = 8057370; — the UPDATE uses the PRIMARY KEY
5. update test.tbl set d = d + interval 1 second where icount = 200; — will affect 4 rows, but requires full scan.

The results?

ALTER TABLE… | Time (sec) | General comments | select max PK | select min by index | select min by full scan | update by PK | update by full scan
ROW_FORMAT=COMPACT | 183 |  | online | online | online | online | online
AUTO_INCREMENT=16960441 | 0.24 | [Instant operation] | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a
ADD INDEX (w) | 21 |  | online | online | online | online | online
DROP INDEX w | 0.1 | [Instant operation] | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a
ADD COLUMN c CHAR(1) NOT NULL | 103 |  | online | online | online | online | online
DROP COLUMN c | 110 |  | online | online | online | online | online

#### Notes

- All operations were online: operations did not wait for ALTER to complete.
- I executed all operations multiple times during each ALTER.
- In addition, I executed operations from another client.
- Some operations were fast, others sometimes took as long as 7.34 seconds to complete. This is no small matter: the time it took for each DML was indeterministic, and longer than what it would usually take it. That’s perfectly understandable. Just note that some operations took exceedingly long time to complete. My understanding is that the ALTER operations happens in chunks. DML statements are allowed in between these chunks. This is the reason why on smaller tables there didn’t seem to be any “online” statement: the chunks were just too large in relation to table size. And so, and this is still my own understanding, your query may get lucky or unlucky depending on the exact moment it has been issued.
- I did not try it with FOREIGN KEYs. I previously concluded that foreign keys were a no-go for online DDL. I’m not sure if this is still the case. Another time for this test – but it must take place.

#### Conclusions

Still RC – but for the first time the online DDL seem to deliver what’s promised. I’m very happy to see this.

I am yet to understand how the ALTER works via replication. With single threaded replication I would assume it’s back to “wait till I’m done” on the slave, in which case the “online” term is not there yet. Even on multi-threaded replication DML on same schema would hang. I’m happy to be corrected on this by an authority.

My predicament is that oak-online-alter-table or pt-online-schema-change are here to stay for the next couple of years at least. Some operations, like partitioning, are not supported by current online InnoDB DDL. Also, these scripts allow you some control over the speed at which the ALTER process works, allowing for pre-defined sleep time in between chunks, so as to let the server – and its slaves – recover their breath.

Nonetheless, big kudos for the InnoDB team at Oracle for pulling this one out!

- Twitter
- LinkedIn
- WhatsApp
- Email
- Facebook
- Print

###
4
Leave a Reply

4 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe
Notify of
Guest
Robert Hodges

Hi Shlomi! Thanks for testing this. Speaking from the perspective of Tungsten (the other parallel replication) it is correct that the ALTER TABLE will be serialized. It’s dangerous to execute DDL statements out of order automatically. Assuming this is a rare operation another approach is to execute directly on each affected server using an unlogged command so that it does not even go into the binlog.

Author
shlomi

Hi Robert,
Yes, I suppose that would make sense best.

Guest
Rolf

Unfortunately, PK are not an online schema change. I wonder if this will be fixed by .11? Never the less I am very impressed with all the efforts from Oracle and others!

Guest
Rolf

Also, ALTER PK statements now take place in @@tmpdir. That could require a rearchitecture for many people.

wpDiscuz
Send to Email Address Your Name Your Email Address Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.