advertise
« The Updated Big List of Articles on the Amazon Outage | Main | PaaS on OpenStack - Run Applications on Any Cloud, Any Time Using Any Thing »
Monday
May022011

Stack Overflow Makes Slow Pages 100x Faster by Simple SQL Tuning

The most common complaint against NoSQL is that if you know how to write good SQL queries then SQL works fine. If SQL is slow you can always tune it and make it faster. A great example of this incremental improvement process was written up by StackExchange's Sam Saffron, in A day in the life of a slow page at Stack Overflow, where he shows through profiling and SQL tuning it was possible to reduce page load times from 630ms to 40ms for some pages and for other pages the improvement was 100x.

Sam provides a lot of wonderful detail of his tuning process, how it works, the thought process, the tools used, and the tradeoffs involved. Here's a short summary of the steps:

  1. Using their mini-profiler it was shown that a badge detail page was taking 630.3 ms to load, 298.1 ms of that was spent on SQL queries, and then the tool listed the SQL queries for the page and how long each took.
  2. From the historical logs, which are stored in HAProxy on a month-by-month basis, Sam was able to determine this page is accessed 26,000 times a day and takes 532ms on average to render. This is too long, yet there are probably higher value problems to be solved, but Google takes speed into account for page rank and Sam thinks this can be done faster.
  3. Sam noticed:
    1. There were lots of select queries which Sam calls the N+1 Select Problem. There are many individual detail select queries to get all the data for a master record. More details at: Hibernate Pitfall: Why Relationships Should Be Lazy.
    2. Half the time was spent on the web server.
    3. There were some expensive queries.
  4. Performing a code review the code uses a LINQ-2-SQL multi join. LINQ-2-SQL takes a high level ORM description and generates SQL code from it. The generated code was slow and cost a 10x slowdown in production.
  5. The strategy was to remove the ORM overhead using Dapper, which is a simple .Net object mapper, to rewrite the query. The resulting code is faster and more debuggable. Linq2Sql is being removed from selects, but is still being used for writes on Stack Overflow.
  6. In production this query was taking too long, so the next step was to look at the query plan, which showed a table scan was being used instead of an index. A new index was created which cut the page load time by a factor of 10.
  7. The N+1 problem was fixed by changing the ViewModel to use a left join which pulled all the records in one query.

A NoSQLite might counter that this is what key-value database is for. All that data could have been retrieved in one get, no tuning, problem solved. The counter is then you lose all the benefits of a relational database and it can be shown that the original was fast enough and could be made very fast through a simple turning process, so there is no reason to go NoSQL.

Related Articles

Reader Comments (11)

If you can optimize a query and remove your scaling worries then you never needed NoSQL to begin with.

May 3, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterBenjamin Darfler

Wow. They made a sql query run faster by applying an index and a join. Where do I sign up for the seminar??

May 3, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAdam

Have to agree with Adam, this is just common practice and why I personally write SQL manually rather than using some ORM. Any decent developer should know to reduce queries (ie no multiple SELECTs), ensure the DB is seeking instead of scanning (add index, force query to use index) and to write queries themselves rather than relying on automated SQL.

All they've done is correct their poor code...

May 3, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterP Smith

@Adam The point is that profiling and simple changes can yield big gains if you take the time to look. Or do you just write the fastest SQL the world has ever seen the first time, everytime?

May 3, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMatt

I have to say this article is pretty weak compared to the normal high scalability standards!

May 3, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterKiall

And this makes it to the front page of hacker news?

May 3, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMark

Kiall, I try to have a mix of topics for different audiences. This is a short gloss on a very nicely written article so programmers have a cliff notes sort of reference going forward. While for some the process described is SOP, I have a strong feeling it isn't for everyone, which is why I thought the original article was so good and that General Chicken chose it as a subject. But I am happy you think quality of content on this site is high :-)

May 3, 2011 | Registered CommenterTodd Hoff

yawn, common 'complaint against' nosql? why? just use whatever tool works for you. for me, mongodb eases huge amounts of development pain (no one here is an sql wizard) and has it's own methods of solving these problems, nothing wrong with either approach

May 3, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterdude

So yea, NoSQL has its advantages. The problem is, most people overestimate the degree to which they need it. In other words, most companies don't have big data problems and would be just fine with SQL.

May 3, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterDavid Beyer

They could have also used NewRelic's profiling tool (that profiles your production app rather than your dev environment), it has a .NET monitor. At my work we use it for all our profiling on both our PHP and Ruby apps, and we found similar problems when we installed it for the first time: a heck of a lot of time being taken up by a small number of pages.

May 3, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRyan Allen

If LinqToSql [Linq] was emitting non-optimized sql then why wasn't LinqToSql [View] used instead where we have control over sql before going with Dapper? Thanks Dan

January 16, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterDan

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>