3 ActiveRecord Mistakes That Slow Down Rails Apps: Count, Where and Present

Nate Berkopec ( by @nateberkopec ) of (who?) , a Rails performance consultancy.

Summary: Many Rails developers don't understand what causes ActiveRecord to actually execute a SQL query. Let's look at three common cases: misuse of the count method, using where to select subsets, and the present? predicate. You may be causing extra queries and N+1s through the abuse of these three methods. (2778 words / 12 minutes)



“When does ActiveRecord execute queries? No one knows!”

ActiveRecord is great. Really, it is. But it’s an abstraction, intended to insulate you from the actual SQL queries being run on your database. And, if you don’t understand how ActiveRecord works, you may be causing SQL queries to run that you didn’t intend to.

Unfortunately, the performance costs of many features of ActiveRecord means we can’t afford to ignore unnecessary usage or treat our ORM as just an implementation detail. We need to understand exactly what queries are being run on our performance-sensitive endpoints. Freedom isn’t free, and neither is ActiveRecord.

One particular case of ActiveRecord misuse that I find is common amongst my clients is that ActiveRecord is executing SQL queries that aren’t really necessary. Most of my clients are completely unaware that this is even happening.





Unnecessary SQL is a common cause of overly slow controller actions, especially when the unnecessary query appears in a partial which is rendered for every element in a collection. This is common in search actions or index actions. This is one of the most common problems I encounter in my performance consulting. It’s a problem in nearly every app I’ve ever worked on.

One way to eliminate unnecessary queries is to poke our heads into ActiveRecord and understand its internals, and know exactly how certain methods are implemented. Today, we’re going to look at the implementation and usage of three methods which cause lots of unnecessary queries in Rails applications: count , where and present? .

How Do I Know if a Query is Unnecessary?

I have a rule of thumb to judge whether or not any particular SQL query is unnecessary. Ideally, a Rails controller action should execute one SQL query per table. If you’re seeing more than one SQL query per table, you can usually find a way to reduce that to one or two queries. If you’ve got more than a half-dozen or so queries on a single table, you almost definitely have unnecessary queries. 1(Please don’t email or tweet with me with ‘Well ackshually…’ on this one. It’s a guideline, not a rule, and I understand there are circumstances where more than one query per table is a good idea.)1 Please don’t email or tweet with me with ‘Well ackshually…’ on this one. It’s a guideline, not a rule, and I understand there are circumstances where more than one query per table is a good idea.

The number of SQL queries per table can be easily seen on NewRelic, for example, if you have that installed.



I keep an eyewash station next to my desk for really bad N+1s

Another rule of thumb is that most queries should execute during the first half of a controller action’s response, and almost never during partials. Queries executed during partials are usually unintentional, and are often N+1s. These are easy to spot during a controller’s execution if you just read the logs in development mode. For example, if you see this:

User Load (0.6ms) SELECT "users".* FROM "users" WHERE "users"."id" = $1 LIMIT 1 [["id", 2]] Rendered posts/_post.html.erb (23.2ms) User Load (0.3ms) SELECT "users".* FROM "users" WHERE "users"."id" = $1 LIMIT 1 [["id", 3]] Rendered posts/_post.html.erb (15.1ms)

… you have an N+1 in this partial.

Usually, when a query is executed halfway through a controller action (somewhere deep in a partial, for example) it means that you haven’t preload ed the data that you needed.

So, let’s look specifically at the count , where and present? methods, and why they cause unnecessary SQL queries.

.count executes a COUNT every time

I see this one at almost every company I contract for. It seems to be little-known that calling count on an ActiveRecord relation will always try to execute a SQL query, every time. This is inappropriate in most scenarios, but, in general, only use count if you want to always execute a SQL COUNT right now.



“How many queries do we want per table?”

The most common cause of unnecessary count queries is when you count an association you will use later in the view (or have already used):

# _messages.html.erb # Assume @messages = user.messages.unread, or something like that <h2>Unread Messages: <%= @messages.count %></h2> <% @messages.each do |message| %> blah blah blah <% end %>

This executes 2 queries, a COUNT and a SELECT . The COUNT is executed by @messages.count , and @messages.each executes a SELECT to load all the messages. Changing the order of the code in the partial and changing count to size eliminates the COUNT query completely and keeps the SELECT :

<% @messages.each do |message| %> blah blah blah <% end %> <h2>Unread Messages: <%= @messages.size %></h2>

Why is this the case? We need not look any further than the actual method definition of size on ActiveRecord::Relation:

# File activerecord/lib/active_record/relation.rb, line 210 def size loaded? ? @records . length : count ( :all ) end





If the relation is loaded (that is, the query that the relation describes has been executed and we have stored the result), we call length on the already loaded record array. That’s just a simple Ruby method on Array. If the ActiveRecord::Relation isn’t loaded, we trigger a COUNT query.

On the other hand, here’s how count is implemented (in ActiveRecord::Calculations):

def count ( column_name = nil ) if block_given? # ... return super () end calculate ( :count , column_name ) end

And, of course, the implementation of calculate doesn’t memoize or cache anything, and executes a SQL calculation every time it is called.

Simply changing count to size in our original example would have still triggered a COUNT . The record’s wouldn’t be loaded? when size was called, so ActiveRecord will still attempt a COUNT . Moving the method after the records are loaded eliminates the query. Now, moving our header to the end of the partial doesn’t really make any logical sense. Instead, we can use the load method.

<h2>Unread Messages: <%= @messages.load.size %></h2> <% @messages.each do |message| %> blah blah blah <% end %>

load just causes all of the records described by @messages to load immediately, rather than lazily. It returns the ActiveRecord::Relation, not the records. So, when size is called, the records are loaded? and a query is avoided. Voilà.

What if, in that example, we used messages.load.count ? We’d still trigger a COUNT query!

When doesn’t count trigger a query? Only if the result has been cached by ActiveRecord::QueryCache .2(I have some Opinions on the use of QueryCache, but that’s a post for another day.)2 I have some Opinions on the use of QueryCache, but that’s a post for another day. This could occur by trying to run the same SQL query twice:

<h2>Unread Messages: <%= @messages.count %></h2> ... lots of other view code, then later: <h2>Unread Messages: <%= @messages.count %></h2>



Every time you use count when you could have used size

In my opinion, most Rails developers should be using size in most of the places that they use count . I’m not sure why everyone seems to write count instead of size . size uses count where it is appropriate, and it doesn’t when the records are already loaded. I think it’s because when you’re writing an ActiveRecord relation, you’re in the “SQL” mindset. You think: “This is SQL, I should write count because I want a COUNT!”

So, when do you actually want to use count ? Use it when you won’t actually ever be loading the full association that you’re count ing. For example, take this view on Rubygems.org, which displays a single gem:

In the “versions” list, the view does a count to get the total number of releases (versions) of this gem.

Here’s the actual code:

<% if show_all_versions_link?(@rubygem) %> <%= link_to t('.show_all_versions', :count => @rubygem.versions.count), rubygem_versions_url(@rubygem), :class => "gem__see-all-versions t-link--gray t-link--has-arrow" %> <% end %>

The thing is, this view never loads all of the Rubygem’s versions. It only loads five of the most recent ones, in order to show that versions list.

So, a count makes perfect sense here. Even though size would be logically equivalent (it would just execute a COUNT as well because @versions is not loaded? ), it states the intent of the code in a clear way.

My advice is to grep through your app/views directory for count calls and make sure that they actually make sense. If you’re not 100% sure that you really need a real SQL COUNT right then and there, switch it to size . Worst case, ActiveRecord will still execute a COUNT if the association isn’t loaded. If you’re going to use the association later in the view, change it to load.size .

.where means filtering is done by the database

What’s the problem with this code (let’s say its _post.html.erb )

<% @posts.each do |post| %> <%= post.content %> <%= render partial: :comment, collection: post.active_comments %> <% end %>

and in Post.rb:

class Post < ActiveRecord :: Base def active_comments comments . where ( soft_deleted: false ) end end





If you said, “this causes a SQL query to be executed on every rendering of the post partial”, you’re correct! where always causes a query. I didn’t even bother to write out the controller code, because it doesn’t matter. You can’t use includes or other preloading methods to stop this query. where will always try to execute a query!

This also happens when you call scopes on associations. Imagine instead our Comment model looked like this:

class Comment < ActiveRecord :: Base belongs_to :post scope :active , -> { where ( soft_deleted: false ) } end

Allow me to sum this up with two rules: Don’t call scopes on associations when you’re rendering collections and don’t put query methods, like where , in instance methods of an ActiveRecord::Base class.

Calling scopes on associations means we cannot preload the result. In the example above, we can preload the comments on a post, but we can’t preload the active comments on a post, so we have to go back to the database and execute new queries for every element in the collection.

This isn’t a problem when you only do it once, and not on every element of a collection (like every post, as above). Feel free to use scopes galore in those situations - for example, if this was a PostsController#show action that only displayed one post and its associated comments. But in collections, scopes on associations cause N+1s, every time.

The best way I’ve found to fix this particular problem is to create a new association. Justin Weiss, of “Practicing Rails”, taught me this in this blog post about preloading Rails scopes. The idea is that you create a new association, which you can preload:

class Post has_many :comments has_many :active_comments , -> { active }, class_name: "Comment" end class Comment belongs_to :post scope :active , -> { where ( soft_deleted: false ) } end class PostsController def index @posts = Post . includes ( :active_comments ) end end

The view is unchanged, but now executes just 2 SQL queries, one on the Posts table and one on the Comments table. Nice!

<% @posts.each do |post| %> <%= post.content %> <%= render partial: :comment, collection: post.active_comments %> <% end %>

The second rule of thumb I mentioned, don’t put query methods, like where, in instance methods of an ActiveRecord::Base class, may seem less obvious. Here’s an example:

class Post < ActiveRecord :: Base belongs_to :post def latest_comment comments . order ( 'published_at desc' ). first end

What happens if the view looks like this?

<% @posts.each do |post| %> <%= post.content %> <%= render post.latest_comment %> <% end %>





That’s a SQL query on every post, regardless of what you preloaded. In my experience, every instance method on an ActiveRecord::Base class will eventually get called inside a collection. Someone adds a new feature and isn’t paying attention. Maybe it’s by a different developer than the one who wrote the method originally, and they didn’t fully read the implementation. Ta-da, now you’ve got an N+1. The example I gave could be rewritten as an association, like I described earlier. That can still cause an N+1, but at least it can be fixed easily with the correct preloading.

Which ActiveRecord methods should we avoid inside of our ActiveRecord model instance methods? Generally, it’s pretty much everything in the QueryMethods , FinderMethods , and Calculations . Any of these methods will usually try to run a SQL query, and are resistant to preloading. where is the most frequent offender, however.

any?, exists? and present?

Rails programmers have been struck by a major affliction - they’re adding a particular predicate method to just about every variable in their applications. present? has spread across Rails codebases faster than the plague in 13th century Europe. The vast majority of the time, the predicate adds nothing but verbosity, and really, all the author needed was a truthy/falsey check, which they could have done by just writing the variable name.

Here’s an example from CodeTriage, a free and open-source Rails application written by my friend Richard Schneeman:

class DocComment < ActiveRecord :: Base belongs_to :doc_method , counter_cache: true # ... things removed for clarity... def doc_method? doc_method_id . present? end end

What is present? doing here? One, it transforms the value of doc_method_id from either nil or an Integer into true or false . Some people have Strong Opinions about whether predicates should return true/false or can return truthy/falsey. I don’t. But adding present? also does something else, and we have to look at the implementation to figure out what:

class Object def present? ! blank? end end

blank? is a more complicated question than “is this object truthy or falsey”. Empty arrays and hashes are truthy, but blank , and empty strings are also blank? . In the example above from CodeTriage, however, the only things that doc_method_id will ever be is nil or Integer , meaning present? is logically equivalent to !! :

def doc_method? !! doc_method_id # same as doc_method_id.present? end





Using present? in cases like this is the wrong tool for the job. If you don’t care about “emptiness” in the value you’re calling the predicate on (i.e. the value cannot be [] or {} ), use the simpler (and much faster) language features available to you. I sometimes see people even do this on values which are already boolean, which means you’re just adding verbosity and making me wonder if there’s some weird edge cases I’m not seeing.

Alright, that’s my style gripe. I understand that you may not agree. present? makes more sense when dealing with strings, which can frequently be empty ( "" ).

Where people get into trouble is calling predicates, such as present? , on ActiveRecord::Relation objects. Let’s say you need to know if an ActiveRecord::Relation has any records. You can use the English-language synonyms any?/present?/exists? or their negations none?/blank?/empty?. Surely it doesn’t matter which method you choose, right? Just pick the one that sounds the most natural when read aloud? Nope.

What SQL queries do you think the following code will execute? Assume @comments is an ActiveRecord::Relation.

- if @comments.any? h2 Comments on this Post - @comments.each do |comment|

The answer is two. One will be an existence check, triggered by @comments.any? ( SELECT 1 AS one FROM ... LIMIT 1 ), then the @comments.each line will trigger a loading of the entire relation ( SELECT "comments".* FROM "comments" WHERE ... ).

What about this?

- unless @comments.load.empty? h2 Comments on this Post - @comments.each do |comment|

This one only executes one query - @comments.load loads the entire relation right away with SELECT "comments".* FROM "comments" WHERE ... .

And this one?

- if @comments.exists? This post has = @comments.size comments - if @comments.exists? h2 Comments on this Post - @comments.each do |comment|

Four! exists? doesn’t memoize itself and it doesn’t load the relation. exists? here triggers a SELECT 1 ... , .size triggers a COUNT because the relation hasn’t been loaded yet, and then the next exists? triggers ANOTHER SELECT 1 ... and finally @comments loads the entire relation! Yay! Isn’t this fun? You could reduce this down to just 1 query with the following:

- if @comments.load.any? This post has = @comments.size comments - if @comments.any? h2 Comments on this Post - @comments.each do |comment|

And it just gets better - this behavior changes depending if you’re on Rails 4.2, Rails 5.0 or Rails 5.1+.

Here’s how it works in Rails 5.1+:

method SQL generated memoized? implementation Runs query if loaded? present? SELECT “users”.* FROM “users” yes ( load ) Object (!blank?) no blank? SELECT “users”.* FROM “users” yes ( load ) load ; blank? no any? SELECT 1 AS one FROM “users” LIMIT 1 no unless loaded !empty? no empty? SELECT 1 AS one FROM “users” LIMIT 1 no unless loaded exists? if ! loaded? no none? SELECT 1 AS one FROM “users” LIMIT 1 no unless loaded empty? no exists? SELECT 1 AS one FROM “users” LIMIT 1 no ActiveRecord::Calculations yes

Here’s how it works in Rails 5.0:

method SQL generated memoized? implementation Runs query if loaded? present? SELECT “users”.* FROM “users” yes ( load ) Object (!blank?) no blank? SELECT “users”.* FROM “users” yes ( load ) load ; blank? no any? SELECT COUNT(*) FROM “users” no unless loaded !empty? no empty? SELECT COUNT(*) FROM “users” no unless loaded count(:all) > 0 no none? SELECT COUNT(*) FROM “users” no unless loaded empty? no exists? SELECT 1 AS one FROM “users” LIMIT 1 no ActiveRecord::Calculations yes

Here’s how it works in Rails 4.2:

method SQL generated memoized? implementation Runs query if loaded? present? SELECT “users”.* FROM “users” yes Object (!blank?) no blank? SELECT “users”.* FROM “users” yes to_a.blank? no any? SELECT COUNT(*) FROM “users” no unless loaded !empty? no empty? SELECT COUNT(*) FROM “users” no unless loaded count(:all) > 0 no none? SELECT “users”.* FROM “users” yes ( load called) Array no exists? SELECT 1 AS one FROM “users” LIMIT 1 no ActiveRecord::Calculations yes

any? , empty? and none? remind me of the implementation of size - if the records are loaded? do a simple method call on a basic Array, if they’re not loaded, always run a SQL query. exists? has no caching or memoization built in, just like other ActiveRecord::Calculations. This means that exists? , which is another method people like to write in these circumstances, is actually much worse than present? in some cases!

These six predicate methods, which are English-language synonyms all asking the same question, have completely different implementations and performance implications, and these consequences depend on which version of Rails you are using. So, let me distill all of the above into some concrete advice:

present? and blank? should not be used if the ActiveRecord::Relation will never be used in its entirety after you call present? or blank? . For example, @my_relation.present?; @my_relation.first(3).each .

and should not be used if the ActiveRecord::Relation will never be used in its entirety after you call or . For example, . any? , none? and empty? should probably be replaced with present? or blank? unless you will only take a section of the ActiveRecord::Relation using first or last . They will generate an extra existence SQL check if you’re just going to use the entire relation if it exists. In essence, change @users.any?; @users.each... to @users.present?; @users.each... or @users.load.any?; @users.each... , but @users.any?; @users.first(3).each is fine.

, and should probably be replaced with or unless you will only take a section of the ActiveRecord::Relation using or . They will generate an extra existence SQL check if you’re just going to use the entire relation if it exists. In essence, change to or , but is fine. exists? is a lot like count - it is never memoized, and always executes a SQL query. Most people probably do not actually want this behavior, and would be better off using present? or blank?

Conclusion





As your app grows in size and complexity, unnecessary SQL can become a real drag on your application’s performance. Each SQL query involves a round-trip back to the database, which entails, usually, at least a millisecond, and sometimes much more for complex WHERE clauses. Even if one extra exists? check isn’t a big deal, if it suddenly happens in every row of a table or a partial in a collection, you’ve got a big problem!

ActiveRecord is a powerful abstraction, but since database access will never be “free”, we need to be aware of how ActiveRecord works internally so that we can avoid database access in unnecessary cases.

App Checklist

Look for uses of present? , none? , any? , blank? and empty? on objects which may be ActiveRecord::Relations. Are you just going to load the entire array later if the relation is present? If so, add load to the call (e.g. @my_relation.load.any? )

, , , and on objects which may be ActiveRecord::Relations. Are you just going to load the entire array later if the relation is present? If so, add to the call (e.g. ) Be careful with your use of exists? - it ALWAYS executes a SQL query. Only use it in cases where that is appropriate - otherwise use present? or any other the other methods which use empty?

- it ALWAYS executes a SQL query. Only use it in cases where that is appropriate - otherwise use or any other the other methods which use Be extremely careful using where in instance methods on ActiveRecord objects - they break preloading and often cause N+1s when used in rendering collections.

in instance methods on ActiveRecord objects - they break preloading and often cause N+1s when used in rendering collections. count always executes a SQL query - audit its use in your codebase, and determine if a size check would be more appropriate.

SHARE:

Facebook Facebook

Twitter Twitter

E-Mail E-Mail