Chapter four

Query Processing and

Optimization

1
Basic Steps in Query Processing
1.Parsing and translation
2.Optimization
3.Evaluation
Basic Steps in Query Processing
(Cont.)
• Parsing and translation
– translate the query into its internal form. This is
then translated into relational algebra.
– Parser checks syntax, verifies relations
• Evaluation
– The query-execution engine takes a query-
evaluation plan, executes that plan, and returns
the answers to the query.
 Basic Steps in Query Processing :
Optimization
• A relational algebra expression may have many equivalent
expressions
– E.g., balance2500(balance(account)) is equivalent to
balance(balance2500(account))

• Each relational algebra operation can be evaluated using

one of several different algorithms
– Correspondingly, a relational-algebra expression can be
evaluated in many ways.
• Annotated expression specifying detailed evaluation
strategy is called an evaluation-plan.
– E.g., can use an index on balance to find accounts with balance
< 2500,
– or can perform complete relation scan and discard accounts
with balance  2500
 Translating SQL Queries into
Relational Algebra
• Query block:
– The basic unit that can be translated into the
algebraic operators and optimized.
• A query block contains a single SELECT-FROM-
WHERE expression, as well as GROUP BY and
HAVING clause if these are part of the block.
• Nested queries within a query are identified
as separate query blocks.
• Aggregate operators in SQL must be included
in the extended algebra.

5
 Translating SQL Queries into Relational Algebra
(cont…)
SELECT LNAME, FNAME
FROM EMPLOYEE
WHERE SALARY > ( SELECT MAX (SALARY)
FROM EMPLOYEE
WHERE DNO = 5);

SELECT LNAME, FNAME SELECT MAX (SALARY)

FROM EMPLOYEE FROM EMPLOYEE
WHERE SALARY > C WHERE DNO = 5

πLNAME, FNAME (σSALARY>C(EMPLOYEE))

ℱMAX SALARY (σDNO=5 (EMPLOYEE))
6
 Introduction
• Alternative ways of evaluating a given
query
• Query optimization is the process of selecting the most efficient query-
evaluation plan from among the many strategies usually possible for
processing a given query, especially if the query is complex.

7
 Introduction (Cont.)
• An evaluation plan defines exactly what algorithm is used for each
operation, and how the execution of the operations is coordinated.

8
 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:
• number of tuples, number of distinct values for an attribute
– Statistics estimation for intermediate results
• to compute cost of complex expressions
– Cost formulae for algorithms, computed using statistics

9
Generating Equivalent
Expressions

10
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
• 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
11
 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.
 L1 ( L2 ( ( Ln ( E )) ))  L1 ( E )

4. Selections can be combined with Cartesian products

and theta joins.
a. (E1 X E2) = E1  E2
b. 1(E1 2 E2) = E1 1 2 E2
12
 Equivalence Rules (Cont.)
5. Theta-join operations (and natural joins) are
commutative.
E1  E2 = E2  E1
6. (a) Natural join operations are associative:
(E1 E2) E3 = E1 (E2 E3)

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

(E1 1 E 2) 2 3 E3 = E 1 1 3 (E2 2 E 3)

where 2 involves attributes from only E2 and E3.

13
Pictorial Depiction of Equivalence
Rules

14
 Equivalence Rules (Cont.)
7. The selection operation distributes over the theta join
operation under the following two conditions:
(a) When all the attributes in 0 involve only the
attributes of one of the expressions (E1) being joined.

0E1  E2) = (0(E1))  E2

(b) When 1 involves only the attributes of E1 and 2

involves only the attributes of E2.
1 E1  E2) = (1(E1))  ( (E2))

15
 Equivalence Rules (Cont.)
8. The projection operation distributes over the theta join operation as
follows:
(a) if  involves only attributes from L1  L2:
L1 L2 ( E1  E2 )  ( L1 ( E1 ))  ( L2 ( E2 ))

(b) Consider a join E1  E 2.

– 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 , but
are not in L1  L2, and
– let L4 be attributes of E2 that are involved in join condition , but
are not in L1  L2.
L L ( E1  E2 )  L L (( L L ( E1 ))  ( L L ( E2 )))
1 2 1 2 1 3 2 4

16
 Equivalence Rules (Cont.)
9. The set operations union and intersection are
commutative
E1  E2 = E2  E1
E1  E2 = E2  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 –.
 (E1 – E2) =  (E1) –  (E2)
  

and similarly for  and  in place of –

Also:  (E1 – E2) =  (E1) – E2
 

and similarly for  in place of –, but not for 

12.The projection operation distributes over union
L(E1  E2) = (L(E1))  (L(E2))
17
 Transformation Example: Pushing Selections

• Query: Find the names of all customers who

have an account at some branch located in
Brooklyn.
customer_name(branch_city = “Brooklyn”
(branch (account depositor)))
• Transformation using rule 7a.
customer_name((branch_city =“Brooklyn” (branch))
(account depositor))
• Performing the selection as early as possible
reduces the size of the relation to be joined.

18
Example with Multiple Transformations
• Query: Find the names of all customers with an
account at a Brooklyn branch whose account balance is
over $1000.
 (
customer_name( branch_city = “Brooklyn”  balance > 1000

(branch (account depositor)))

• Transformation using join associatively (Rule 6a):
 ((
customer_name branch_city = “Brooklyn”  balance > 1000

(branch account)) depositor)

• Second form provides an opportunity to apply the
“perform selections early” rule, resulting in the
subexpression
 (branch) 
branch_city = “Brooklyn” (account) balance > 1000

• Thus a sequence of transformations can be useful

19
Multiple Transformations (Cont.)

20
 Transformation Example: Pushing Projections
customer_name((branch_city = “Brooklyn” (branch) account) depositor)

• When we compute
( branch_city = “Brooklyn” (branch) account )

we obtain a relation whose schema is:

(branch_name, branch_city, assets, account_number, balance)
• Push projections using equivalence rules 8a and 8b; eliminate
unneeded attributes from intermediate results to get:
customer_name (( account_number ( (branch_city = “Brooklyn” (branch)
account )) depositor )
• Performing the projection as early as possible reduces the size of
the relation to be joined.

21
 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.
22
 Join Ordering Example (Cont.)
• Consider the expression
customer_name ((branch_city = “Brooklyn” (branch))
(account depositor))
• Could compute account depositor first, and join
result with
branch_city = “Brooklyn” (branch)

but account depositor is likely to be a large relation.

• Only a small fraction of the bank’s customers are likely
to have accounts in branches located in Brooklyn
– it is better to compute
branch_city = “Brooklyn” (branch) account
first.

23
 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
• apply all applicable equivalence rules on every equivalent
expression found so far
• 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
• Optimized plan generation based on transformation rules
• Special case approach for queries with only selections,
projections and joins
24
 Cost Estimation
• Cost of each operator computer
– Need statistics of input relations
• E.g. number of tuples, sizes of tuples
• Inputs can be results of sub-expressions
– Need to estimate statistics of expression results
– To do so, we require additional statistics
• E.g. number of distinct values for an attribute

26
 Choice of Evaluation Plans
• Must consider the interaction of evaluation
techniques when choosing evaluation plans
– choosing the cheapest algorithm for each operation
independently may not yield best overall algorithm.
E.g.
• merge-join may be costlier than hash-join, but may provide a
sorted output which reduces the cost for an outer level
aggregation.
• nested-loop join may provide opportunity for pipelining
• Practical query optimizers incorporate elements of
the following two broad approaches:
1. Search all the plans and choose the best plan in a
cost-based fashion.
2. Uses heuristics to choose a plan.

27
 Cost-Based Optimization
• Consider finding the best join-order for r1 r2 ... rn.
• There are (2(n – 1))!/(n – 1)! different join orders for
above expression. With n = 7, the number is 665280,
with n = 10, the number is greater than 176 billion!
• No need to generate all the join orders. Using
dynamic programming, the least-cost join order for
any subset of {r1, r2, . . . rn} is computed only once
and stored for future use.

28
 Left Deep Join Trees
• In left-deep join trees, the right-hand-side
input for each join is a relation, not the
result of an intermediate join.

31
 Cost of Optimization
• With dynamic programming time complexity of
optimization with bushy trees is O(3n).
– With n = 10, this number is 59000 instead of 176 billion!
• Space complexity is O(2n)
• To find best left-deep join tree for a set of n relations:
– Consider n alternatives with one relation as right-hand side
input and the other relations as left-hand side input.
– Modify optimization algorithm:
• Replace “for each non-empty subset S1 of S such that S1  S”
• By: for each relation r in S
let S1 = S – r .
• If only left-deep trees are considered, time complexity of
finding best join order is O(n 2n)
– Space complexity remains at O(2n)
• Cost-based optimization is expensive, but worthwhile for
queries on large datasets (typical queries have small n,
generally < 10)
32
 Interesting Sort Orders
• Consider the expression (r1 r2) r3 (with A as
common attribute)
• An interesting sort order is a particular sort order of
tuples that could be useful for a later operation
– Using merge-join to compute r1 r2 may be costlier than
hash join but generates result sorted on A
– Which in turn may make merge-join with r3 cheaper, which
may reduce cost of join with r3 and minimizing overall cost
– Sort order may also be useful for order by and for grouping
• Not sufficient to find the best join order for each subset
of the set of n given relations
– must find the best join order for each subset, for each
interesting sort order
– Simple extension of earlier dynamic programming algorithms
– Usually, number of interesting orders is quite small and
doesn’t affect time/space complexity significantly
33
 Heuristic Optimization
• Cost-based optimization is expensive, even with
dynamic programming.
• Systems may use heuristics to reduce the number of
choices that must be made in a cost-based fashion.
• Heuristic optimization transforms the query-tree by
using a set of rules that typically (but not in all cases)
improve execution performance:
– Perform selection early (reduces the number of tuples)
– Perform projection early (reduces the number of attributes)
– Perform most restrictive selection and join operations (i.e.
with smallest result size) before other similar operations.
– Some systems use only heuristics, others combine heuristics
with partial cost-based optimization.

34
 Structure of Query Optimizers
• Many optimizers considers only left-deep join
orders.
– Plus heuristics to push selections and projections down
the query tree
– Reduces optimization complexity and generates plans
amenable to pipelined evaluation.
• Heuristic optimization used in some versions of
Oracle:
– Repeatedly pick “best” relation to join next
• Starting from each of n starting points. Pick best among these
• Intricacies of SQL complicate query optimization
– E.g. nested subqueries

35
Structure of Query Optimizers (Cont.)
• Some query optimizers integrate heuristic selection
and the generation of alternative access plans.
– Frequently used approach
• heuristic rewriting of nested block structure and aggregation
• followed by cost-based join-order optimization for each block
– Some optimizers (e.g. SQL Server) apply transformations
to entire query and do not depend on block structure
• Even with the use of heuristics, cost-based query
optimization imposes a substantial overhead.
– But is worth it for expensive queries
– Optimizers often use simple heuristics for very cheap
queries, and perform exhaustive enumeration for more
expensive queries

36
End of Chapter

46