在 AUTO_INCREMENT 列中使用 UNIQUE 来创建改进的 PRIMARY KEY

Question

Taking into account that in MySQL the AUTO_INCREMENT column must be part of the PRIMARY KEY , I would like to ask if makes sense using UNIQUE key in that AUTO_INCREMENT column to be able to create a composite PRIMARY KEY without defining it as the first PK index.

I created a table like this:

CREATE TABLE `test` (
id INT NOT NULL auto_increment,
a  INT NOT NULL,
b  INT NOT NULL,
c  INT NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id, a, b));

My purpose is to search by (a) or (a, b) and then sort it according to id . I would like to create a PRIMARY KEY as (a, b, id) but it is not allowed by definition. Besides, as documentation states, a PRIMARY KEY composed of (x, y, z) will take advantage of PRIMARY KEY only if you search by (x) , (x, y) or (x, y, z) , but not if you search by (y) or (y , z) (or anything else). I verified it. Indeed, with the above PRIMARY KEY (id, a, b) definition, any query searching for a does not use any PRIMARY KEY :

DESCRIBE SELECT `a`, `b` FROM `test` WHERE `a` = 0;
+------+-------------+-------+-------+---------------+---------+---------+------+------+--------------------------+
| id   | select_type | table | type  | possible_keys | key     | key_len | ref  | rows | Extra                    |
+------+-------------+-------+-------+---------------+---------+---------+------+------+--------------------------+
|    1 | SIMPLE      | test  | index | NULL          | PRIMARY | 12      | NULL |    1 | Using where; Using index |
+------+-------------+-------+-------+---------------+---------+---------+------+------+--------------------------+

I decided to cheat a bit and redefined id as UNIQUE KEY (so that it is still regarded as a KEY ) and then recreated a PRIMARY KEY as (a, b, id) . This works:

ALTER TABLE `test` DROP PRIMARY KEY, ADD UNIQUE KEY (`id`), ADD PRIMARY KEY (`a`, `b`, `id`)

Now, searching by a uses PRIMARY KEY !

DESCRIBE SELECT `a`, `b` FROM `test` WHERE `a` = 0;
+------+-------------+-------+------+---------------+---------+---------+-------+------+-------------+
| id   | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key     | key_len | ref   | rows | Extra       |
+------+-------------+-------+------+---------------+---------+---------+-------+------+-------------+
|    1 | SIMPLE      | test  | ref  | PRIMARY       | PRIMARY | 4       | const |    1 | Using index |
+------+-------------+-------+------+---------------+---------+---------+-------+------+-------------+

That changes this original PRIMARY KEY (id, a, b) with id in the first position to another scheme with a in the first position:

# before
SHOW KEYS FROM `test`;
+-------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment | Index_comment |
+-------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| test  |          0 | PRIMARY  |            1 | id          | A         |           0 |     NULL | NULL   |      | BTREE      |         |               |
| test  |          0 | PRIMARY  |            2 | a           | A         |           0 |     NULL | NULL   |      | BTREE      |         |               |
| test  |          0 | PRIMARY  |            3 | b           | A         |           0 |     NULL | NULL   |      | BTREE      |         |               |
+-------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+

# after
SHOW KEYS FROM `test`;
+-------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment | Index_comment |
+-------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| test  |          0 | PRIMARY  |            1 | a           | A         |           0 |     NULL | NULL   |      | BTREE      |         |               |
| test  |          0 | PRIMARY  |            2 | b           | A         |           0 |     NULL | NULL   |      | BTREE      |         |               |
| test  |          0 | PRIMARY  |            3 | id          | A         |           0 |     NULL | NULL   |      | BTREE      |         |               |
| test  |          0 | id       |            1 | id          | A         |           0 |     NULL | NULL   |      | BTREE      |         |               |
+-------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+

Does this have any performance penalties or any disadvantages I did not see? This solutions looks to me simpler than triggering stored procedures to increment the index (like this solution ).

Thank you in advance

Answer 1

It seems like you can achieve your goals by having id as the sole primary key and indexes on (a,b) and (a) - recent versions of mysql will implicitly add the primary key to the end of all other indexes. To avoid a separate sort step, you may need to hint your a= query to use the a index instead of the a,b index. If id alone is unique, there's no reason to have a longer primary key.