GROUP BY DATE_FORMAT(record_date, '%Y%m')

Note (primarily, to potential downvoters). Presently, this may not be as efficient as other suggestions. Still, I leave it as an alternative, and a one, too, that can serve in seeing how faster other solutions are. (For you can't really tell fast from slow until you see the difference.) Also, as time goes on, changes could be made to MySQL's engine with regard to optimisation so as to make this solution, at some (perhaps, not so distant) point in future, to become quite comparable in efficiency with most others.

如果你想过滤特定年份(例如2000年)的记录，那么优化WHERE子句，如下所示:

SELECT MONTH(date_column), COUNT(*)
FROM date_table
WHERE date_column >= '2000-01-01' AND date_column < '2001-01-01'
GROUP BY MONTH(date_column)
-- average 0.016 sec.

而不是:

WHERE YEAR(date_column) = 2000
-- average 0.132 sec.

结果是根据一个包含300k行和date列索引的表生成的。

至于GROUP BY子句，我根据上面提到的表测试了三个变体;以下是调查结果:

SELECT YEAR(date_column), MONTH(date_column), COUNT(*)
FROM date_table
GROUP BY YEAR(date_column), MONTH(date_column)
-- codelogic
-- average 0.250 sec.

SELECT YEAR(date_column), MONTH(date_column), COUNT(*)
FROM date_table
GROUP BY DATE_FORMAT(date_column, '%Y%m')
-- Andriy M
-- average 0.468 sec.

SELECT YEAR(date_column), MONTH(date_column), COUNT(*)
FROM date_table
GROUP BY EXTRACT(YEAR_MONTH FROM date_column)
-- fu-chi
-- average 0.203 sec.

最后一个是赢家。

我试着使用上面的“WHERE”语句，我认为它是正确的，因为没有人纠正它，但我错了;经过一些搜索，我发现这是WHERE语句的正确公式，所以代码变成这样:

SELECT COUNT(id)  
FROM stats  
WHERE YEAR(record_date) = 2009  
GROUP BY MONTH(record_date)

完整而简单的解决方案，具有类似的性能，但更短，更灵活的替代方案，目前活跃:

SELECT COUNT(*) FROM stats
-- GROUP BY YEAR(record_date), MONTH(record_date), DAYOFMONTH(record_date)
GROUP BY DATE_FORMAT(record_date, '%Y-%m-%d')

试一试

按年(record_date)，月(record_date)分组

GROUP BY DATE_FORMAT(record_date, '%Y%m')

Note (primarily, to potential downvoters). Presently, this may not be as efficient as other suggestions. Still, I leave it as an alternative, and a one, too, that can serve in seeing how faster other solutions are. (For you can't really tell fast from slow until you see the difference.) Also, as time goes on, changes could be made to MySQL's engine with regard to optimisation so as to make this solution, at some (perhaps, not so distant) point in future, to become quite comparable in efficiency with most others.