Shlomi's trick reminds me somewhat of the trick I came across little over a year ago to caclulate percentiles. At that time, several people pointed out to me too that using user-defined variables in this way can be unreliable.
The problem with user-defined variables
So what is the problem exaclty? Well, whenever a query assigns to a variable, and that same variable is read in another part of the query, you're on thin ice. That's because the result of the read is likely to differ depending on whether the assignment took place before or after the read. Not surprising when you think about it - the whole point of variable assignment is to change its value, which by definition causes a different result when subsequently reading the variable (unless you assigned the already assigned value of course, duh...).Now watch that previous statement clearly - the word subsequently is all-important.
See, that's the problem. The semantics of a SQL
SELECT statement is to obtain a (tabular) resultset - not specifying an algorithm to construct that resultset. It is the job of the RDBMS to figure out an algorithm and thus, you can't be sure in what order individual expressions (including variable evaluation and assignment) are executed. The MySQL manual states it like this:
The order of evaluation for user variables is undefined and may change based on the elements contained within a given query. InSELECT @a, @a := @a+1 ..., you might think that MySQL will evaluate@afirst and then do an assignment second, but changing the query (for example, by adding aGROUP BY,HAVING, orORDER BYclause) may change the order of evaluation.
The general rule is never to assign a value to a user variable in one part of a statement and use the same variable in some other part of the same statement. You might get the results you expect, but this is not guaranteed.
So what good are these variables anyway?
On the one hand, this looks really lame: can't MySQL just figure out the correct order of doing the calulations? Well, that is one way of looking at it. But there is an equally valid reason not to do that. If the calculations would influence execution order, it would drastically lessen the number of ways that are available to optimize the statement.This begs the question: Why is it possible at all to assign values to the user-defined variables? The answer is quite simple: you can use it to pass values between statetments. My hunch is the variables were created in the olden days to overcome some limitations resulting from the lack of support for subqueries. Having variables at least enables you to execute a query and assign the result temporarily for use in a subsequent statement. For example, to find the student with the highest score, you can do:
There is nothing wrong with this approach - problems start arising only when reading and writing the same variable in one and the same statement.
mysql> select @score:=max(score) from score;
+--------------------+
| @score:=max(score) |
+--------------------+
| 97 |
+--------------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> select * from score where score = @score;
+----------+--------------+-------+
| score_id | student_name | score |
+----------+--------------+-------+
| 2 | Gromit | 97 |
+----------+--------------+-------+
1 row in set (0.03 sec)
Another way - serializing the set with GROUP_CONCAT
Anyway, the percentile post I just linked to contains another solution for that problem that relies on
GROUP_CONCAT. It turns out we can use the same trick here.(Some people may like to point out that using
GROUP_CONCAT is not without issues either, because it may truncate the list in case the pre-assigned string buffer is not large enough. I wrote about dealing with that limitation in several places and I remain recommending to set the group_concat_max_len server variable to the value set for the max_packet_size server variable like so: SET @@group_concat_max_len := @@max_allowed_packet;)
The best way to understand how it works is to think of the problem in a few steps. First, we make an ordered list of all the values we want to rank. We can do this with
GROUP_CONCAT like this:
mysql> SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(
-> DISTINCT score
-> ORDER BY score DESC
-> ) AS scores
-> FROM score
-> ;
+-------------+
| scores |
+-------------+
| 97,95,92,85 |
+-------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
Now that we have this list, we can use the
FIND_IN_SET function to look up the position of any particlar value contained in the list. Because the list is ordered in descending order (due to the ORDER BY ... DESC), and contains only unique values (due to the DISTINCT), this position is in fact the rank number. For example, if we want to know the rank of all scores with the value 92, we can do:So, the answer is
mysql> SELECT FIND_IN_SET(92, '97,95,92,85')
+--------------------------------+
| FIND_IN_SET(92, '97,95,92,85') |
+--------------------------------+
| 3 |
+--------------------------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
3 because 92 is the third entry in the list.(If you're wondering how it's possible that we can pass the integer
92 as first argument for FIND_IN_SET: the function expects string arguments, and automatically converts whichever non-string typed value we pass to a string. In the case of the integer 92, it is silently converted to the string '92')Of course, we are't really interested in looking up ranks for individual numbers one at a time; rather, we'd like to combine this with a query on the
scores table that does it for us. Likewise, we don't really want to manually supply the list of values as a string constant, we want to substitute that with the query we wrote to generate that list.So, we get:
mysql> SELECT score_id, student_name, score
-> , FIND_IN_SET(
-> score
-> , (SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(
-> DISTINCT score
-> ORDER BY score DESC
-> )
-> FROM score)
-> ) as rank
-> FROM score;
+----------+--------------+-------+------+
| score_id | student_name | score | rank |
+----------+--------------+-------+------+
| 1 | Wallace | 95 | 2 |
| 2 | Gromit | 97 | 1 |
| 3 | Shaun | 85 | 4 |
| 4 | McGraw | 92 | 3 |
| 5 | Preston | 92 | 3 |
+----------+--------------+-------+------+
5 rows in set (0.00 sec)
Alternatively, if you think that subqueries are for the devil, you can rewrite this to a
CROSS JOIN like so:
SELECT score_id, student_name, score
, FIND_IN_SET(
score
, scores
) AS rank
FROM score
CROSS JOIN (SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(
DISTINCT score
ORDER BY score DESC
) AS scores
FROM score) scores
Now that we have a solutions, lets see how it compares to Shlomi's original method. To do this, I am using the
payment table from the sakila sample database.First, Shlomi's method:
mysql> SELECT payment_id
-> , amount
-> , @prev := @curr
-> , @curr := amount
-> , @rank := IF(@prev = @curr, @rank, @rank+1) AS rank
-> FROM sakila.payment
-> , (SELECT @curr := null, @prev := null, @rank := 0) sel1
-> ORDER BY amount DESC;
+------------+--------+----------------+-----------------+------+
| payment_id | amount | @prev := @curr | @curr := amount | rank |
+------------+--------+----------------+-----------------+------+
| 342 | 11.99 | NULL | 11.99 | 1 |
. ... . ..... . ..... . ..... . . .
| 15456 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 19 |
+------------+--------+----------------+-----------------+------+
16049 rows in set (0.09 sec)
Wow! It sure is fast :) Now, the
GROUP_CONCAT solution, using a subquery:
mysql> SELECT payment_id, amount
-> , FIND_IN_SET(
-> amount
-> , (SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(
-> DISTINCT amount
-> ORDER BY amount DESC
-> )
-> FROM sakila.payment)
-> ) as rank
-> FROM sakila.payment
+------------+--------+------+
| payment_id | amount | rank |
+------------+--------+------+
| 1 | 2.99 | 15 |
. . . .... . .. .
| 16049 | 2.99 | 15 |
+------------+--------+------+
16049 rows in set (0.14 sec)
(In case you're wondering why the results are different, this is because the result set for Shlomi's solution is necessarily ordered by ascending rank (or descending amount - same difference. To obtain the identical result, you need to add an
ORDER BY clause to my query. But since the point was to calculate the ranks, I didn't bother. Of course, adding an ORDER BY could slow things down even more.)Quite a bit slower, bummer. But at leastt we can't run into nasties with the user variables anymore. For this data set, I get about the same performance with the
CROSS JOIN, but I should warn that I did not do a real benchmark.Conclusion
Don't fall into the trap of reading and writing the same user-defined variable in the same statement. Although it seems like a great device and can give you very good performance, you cannot really control the order of reads and writes. Even if you can, you must check it again whenever you have reason to believe the query will be solved differently by the server. This is of course the case whenever you upgrade the server. But also seemingly harmless changes like adding an index to a table may change the order of execution.Almost all cases where people want to read and write to the same user variables within the same query, they are dealing with a kind of serialization problem. They are trying to maintain state in a variable in order to use it across rows. In many cases, the right way to do that is to use a self-join. But this may not always be feasible, as pointed out in Shlomi's original post. For example, rewriting the payment rank query using a self join is not going to make you happy.
Often, there is a way out. You can use
GROUP_CONCAT to serialize a set of rows. Granted, you need at least one pass for that, and another one to do something useful with the result, but this still a lot better than dealing with semi-cartesian self join issues.
