Vjylku

Lied on resume at previous job

Why doesn't a const reference extend the life of a temporary object passed via a function?

New order #4: World

Check if two datetimes are between two others

Does it makes sense to buy a new cycle to learn riding?

Is a car considered movable or immovable property?

Is every set a filtered colimit of finite sets?

Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?

Information to fellow intern about hiring?

Is Fable (1996) connected in any way to the Fable franchise from Lionhead Studios?

OA final episode explanation

Deciding between multiple birth names and dates?

Was there ever an axiom rendered a theorem?

Ideas for colorfully and clearly highlighting graph edges according to weights

"listening to me about as much as you're listening to this pole here"

Unbreakable Formation vs. Cry of the Carnarium

Can I legally use front facing blue light in the UK?

Can I find out the caloric content of bread by dehydrating it?

Why airport relocation isn't done gradually?

Can produce flame be used to grapple, or as an unarmed strike, in the right circumstances?

Is Social Media Science Fiction?

What do the Banks children have against barley water?

Eliminate empty elements from a list with a specific pattern

Is there a way to make member function NOT callable from constructor?

COUNT(id) or MAX(id) - which is faster?

How to efficiently count the number of keys/properties of an object in JavaScript?Which “href” value should I use for JavaScript links, “#” or “javascript:void(0)”?Which is faster: Stack allocation or Heap allocationSQL select only rows with max value on a columnWhy are elementwise additions much faster in separate loops than in a combined loop?Why is it faster to process a sorted array than an unsorted array?Why does Python code run faster in a function?Is < faster than <=?Which is faster: while(1) or while(2)?Why is [] faster than list()?

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}

7

1

i have a web server, that has my own messaging system implemented.
I am at phase, when i need to create API, that checks, if the user has new message(s).
My DB table is simple:

ID - Auto Increment, Primary Key (Bigint)

Sender - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table

Recipient - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table

Message - Varchar (256) //UTF8 BIN

I am considering to make an api, that will estimate, if there are new messages for given user. I am thinking to use one of these methods:

A) Select count(*) of messages where sender or recipient is me (if this number > previous number, i have new message)

B) Select max(ID) of messages where sender or recipient is me (if max(ID) > than previous number, i have new message)

My question is: Can i calculate somehow, what method will consume less server resources? Or is there some article? Maybe another method i not mentioned?

php mysql performance

share|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

Kaii

15.7k22850

asked 2 hours ago

FeHoraFeHora

435

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I think you would be better off by adding a timestamp column and checking against that value to see if there are newer records.
  
  – Dharman
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Either querying a timestamp or the ID, use MAX() on that column, and make sure it's indexed with (user_id, timestamp).
  
  – The Impaler
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Dharman i was thinking of it. But it costs extra DB space, also i am not sure if it will be faster than one of my methods. I am storing the simple number (of current messages) in usernames table
  
  – FeHora
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Calculate? No idea. But you can measure it. Fire off a few thousands of each query and watch machine metrics (cpu%, mem%, load average, etc.)
  
  – Sergio Tulentsev
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  While there is a good answer to this question below, I suspect you might be optimizing on something that turns out not to be important. And unless you anticipate having literally millions of messages, I wouldn't worry about disk space, especially because the timestamp is small compared to your other fields. If you add timestamps, your table will be about 5MB larger for each million messages. That's really nothing.
  
  – Jerry
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

7

1

i have a web server, that has my own messaging system implemented.
I am at phase, when i need to create API, that checks, if the user has new message(s).
My DB table is simple:

ID - Auto Increment, Primary Key (Bigint)

Sender - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table

Recipient - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table

Message - Varchar (256) //UTF8 BIN

I am considering to make an api, that will estimate, if there are new messages for given user. I am thinking to use one of these methods:

A) Select count(*) of messages where sender or recipient is me (if this number > previous number, i have new message)

B) Select max(ID) of messages where sender or recipient is me (if max(ID) > than previous number, i have new message)

My question is: Can i calculate somehow, what method will consume less server resources? Or is there some article? Maybe another method i not mentioned?

php mysql performance

share|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

Kaii

15.7k22850

asked 2 hours ago

FeHoraFeHora

435

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I think you would be better off by adding a timestamp column and checking against that value to see if there are newer records.
  
  – Dharman
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Either querying a timestamp or the ID, use MAX() on that column, and make sure it's indexed with (user_id, timestamp).
  
  – The Impaler
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Dharman i was thinking of it. But it costs extra DB space, also i am not sure if it will be faster than one of my methods. I am storing the simple number (of current messages) in usernames table
  
  – FeHora
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Calculate? No idea. But you can measure it. Fire off a few thousands of each query and watch machine metrics (cpu%, mem%, load average, etc.)
  
  – Sergio Tulentsev
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  While there is a good answer to this question below, I suspect you might be optimizing on something that turns out not to be important. And unless you anticipate having literally millions of messages, I wouldn't worry about disk space, especially because the timestamp is small compared to your other fields. If you add timestamps, your table will be about 5MB larger for each million messages. That's really nothing.
  
  – Jerry
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

i have a web server, that has my own messaging system implemented.
I am at phase, when i need to create API, that checks, if the user has new message(s).
My DB table is simple:

ID - Auto Increment, Primary Key (Bigint)

Sender - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table

Recipient - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table

Message - Varchar (256) //UTF8 BIN

I am considering to make an api, that will estimate, if there are new messages for given user. I am thinking to use one of these methods:

A) Select count(*) of messages where sender or recipient is me (if this number > previous number, i have new message)

B) Select max(ID) of messages where sender or recipient is me (if max(ID) > than previous number, i have new message)

My question is: Can i calculate somehow, what method will consume less server resources? Or is there some article? Maybe another method i not mentioned?

php mysql performance

share|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

Kaii

15.7k22850

asked 2 hours ago

FeHoraFeHora

435

ID - Auto Increment, Primary Key (Bigint)

Sender - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table

Recipient - Varchar (32) // Foreign Key to UserID hash from Users DB Table

Message - Varchar (256) //UTF8 BIN

share|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

Kaii

15.7k22850

asked 2 hours ago

FeHoraFeHora

435

share|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

Kaii

15.7k22850

asked 2 hours ago

FeHoraFeHora

435

edited 1 hour ago

Kaii

15.7k22850

edited 1 hour ago

Kaii

15.7k22850

asked 2 hours ago

FeHoraFeHora

435

asked 2 hours ago

FeHoraFeHora

435

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

9

In MySQL InnoDB, SELECT COUNT(*) WHERE secondary_index = ? is an expensive operation and when the user has a lot of messages, this query might take a long time. Even when using an index, the engine still needs to count all matching records.

On the other hand, SELECT MAX(id) WHERE secondary_index = ? can deliver the highest id in that index very efficiently and runs in constant speed by doing a so-called loose index scan.

If you want to understand why, consider looking up the "B-Tree+" data structure which InnoDB uses to organise its data.

I suggest you go with SELECT MAX(id), if the requirement is only to check if there are new messages (and not the count of them).

Also, if you rely on the message count you might open a gap for race conditions. What if the user deletes a message and receives a new one between two polling intervals?

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

KaiiKaii

15.7k22850

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  refer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/130780/mysql-count-performance
  
  – Kaii
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  "SELECT MAX(id) will always use the primary index" - yeah, except for the cases when there's a where on an unindexed field.
  
  – Sergio Tulentsev
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @SergioTulentsev i forgot to mention in my main post, sender and recipient are foreign keys to user-hash (ID) - primary key in users table. So it will be indexed always.
  
  – FeHora
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Kaii "Also, if you rely on the message count you might open a gap for race conditions. What if the user deletes a message and receives a new one between two polling intervals?" if the user deletes the message it just become hidden for security reasons, it will have a value hidden:true. but the count will not change
  
  – FeHora
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  If there's an index on a, then SELECT MAX(id) FROM tbl WHERE a=constant uses a so-called loose index scan. Those are almost miraculously fast. SELECT COUNT(*) FROM tbl WHERE a=constant does a tight index scan, which is not as fast.
  
  – O. Jones
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 4 more comments

-1

To have the information that someone has new messages - do exactly that. Update the field in users table (I'm assuming that's the name) when a new message is recorded in the system. You have the recipient's ID, that's all you need. You can create an after insert trigger (assumption: there's users2messages table) that updates users table with a boolean flag indicating there's a message.

This approach is by far faster than counting indexes, be the index primary or secondary. When the user performs an action, you can update the users table with has_messages = 0, when a new message arrives - you update the table with has_messages = 1. It's simple, it works, it scales and using triggers to maintain it makes it easy and seamless.
I'm sure there will be nay-sayers who don't like triggers, you can do it manually at the point of associating a user with a new message.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

MjhMjh

1,96911112

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  triggers aside, looking up a row using the PK and also reading it to check the boolean is still more expensive than executing a single loose index scan. It gets worse when you also add a WHERE clause to check the boolean flag because of the low cardinality even if you index that field. Sorry to tell you you that, but you have a misunderstanding there.
  
  – Kaii
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Mjh i know about that.. but it's definitely more expensive than my suggested methods, because it contains (at least) 1x update + 1x select
  
  – FeHora
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Kaii SELECT has_messages FROM users WHERE id = 1; is the fastest query there is. It's an eq_ref which is infinitely faster than counting a number of records in the table. The boolean field is not in the WHERE clause, the primary key is. Please, assume better next time. In regards to updating the table: the update is fast as well, it handles a single row located using the primary key. If the field is already containing the value that you're updating to, no actual disk I/O occurs and there's a minimal performance penalty. Much less than counting the records. You can measure.
  
  – Mjh
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55581114%2fcountid-or-maxid-which-is-faster%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

9

In MySQL InnoDB, SELECT COUNT(*) WHERE secondary_index = ? is an expensive operation and when the user has a lot of messages, this query might take a long time. Even when using an index, the engine still needs to count all matching records.

On the other hand, SELECT MAX(id) WHERE secondary_index = ? can deliver the highest id in that index very efficiently and runs in constant speed by doing a so-called loose index scan.

If you want to understand why, consider looking up the "B-Tree+" data structure which InnoDB uses to organise its data.

I suggest you go with SELECT MAX(id), if the requirement is only to check if there are new messages (and not the count of them).

Also, if you rely on the message count you might open a gap for race conditions. What if the user deletes a message and receives a new one between two polling intervals?

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

KaiiKaii

15.7k22850

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  refer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/130780/mysql-count-performance
  
  – Kaii
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  "SELECT MAX(id) will always use the primary index" - yeah, except for the cases when there's a where on an unindexed field.
  
  – Sergio Tulentsev
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @SergioTulentsev i forgot to mention in my main post, sender and recipient are foreign keys to user-hash (ID) - primary key in users table. So it will be indexed always.
  
  – FeHora
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Kaii "Also, if you rely on the message count you might open a gap for race conditions. What if the user deletes a message and receives a new one between two polling intervals?" if the user deletes the message it just become hidden for security reasons, it will have a value hidden:true. but the count will not change
  
  – FeHora
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  If there's an index on a, then SELECT MAX(id) FROM tbl WHERE a=constant uses a so-called loose index scan. Those are almost miraculously fast. SELECT COUNT(*) FROM tbl WHERE a=constant does a tight index scan, which is not as fast.
  
  – O. Jones
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 4 more comments

9

In MySQL InnoDB, SELECT COUNT(*) WHERE secondary_index = ? is an expensive operation and when the user has a lot of messages, this query might take a long time. Even when using an index, the engine still needs to count all matching records.

On the other hand, SELECT MAX(id) WHERE secondary_index = ? can deliver the highest id in that index very efficiently and runs in constant speed by doing a so-called loose index scan.

If you want to understand why, consider looking up the "B-Tree+" data structure which InnoDB uses to organise its data.

I suggest you go with SELECT MAX(id), if the requirement is only to check if there are new messages (and not the count of them).

Also, if you rely on the message count you might open a gap for race conditions. What if the user deletes a message and receives a new one between two polling intervals?

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

KaiiKaii

15.7k22850

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  refer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/130780/mysql-count-performance
  
  – Kaii
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  "SELECT MAX(id) will always use the primary index" - yeah, except for the cases when there's a where on an unindexed field.
  
  – Sergio Tulentsev
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @SergioTulentsev i forgot to mention in my main post, sender and recipient are foreign keys to user-hash (ID) - primary key in users table. So it will be indexed always.
  
  – FeHora
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Kaii "Also, if you rely on the message count you might open a gap for race conditions. What if the user deletes a message and receives a new one between two polling intervals?" if the user deletes the message it just become hidden for security reasons, it will have a value hidden:true. but the count will not change
  
  – FeHora
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  If there's an index on a, then SELECT MAX(id) FROM tbl WHERE a=constant uses a so-called loose index scan. Those are almost miraculously fast. SELECT COUNT(*) FROM tbl WHERE a=constant does a tight index scan, which is not as fast.
  
  – O. Jones
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 4 more comments

In MySQL InnoDB, SELECT COUNT(*) WHERE secondary_index = ? is an expensive operation and when the user has a lot of messages, this query might take a long time. Even when using an index, the engine still needs to count all matching records.

On the other hand, SELECT MAX(id) WHERE secondary_index = ? can deliver the highest id in that index very efficiently and runs in constant speed by doing a so-called loose index scan.

If you want to understand why, consider looking up the "B-Tree+" data structure which InnoDB uses to organise its data.

I suggest you go with SELECT MAX(id), if the requirement is only to check if there are new messages (and not the count of them).

Also, if you rely on the message count you might open a gap for race conditions. What if the user deletes a message and receives a new one between two polling intervals?

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

KaiiKaii

15.7k22850

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

KaiiKaii

15.7k22850

answered 2 hours ago

KaiiKaii

15.7k22850

answered 2 hours ago

KaiiKaii

15.7k22850

-1

To have the information that someone has new messages - do exactly that. Update the field in users table (I'm assuming that's the name) when a new message is recorded in the system. You have the recipient's ID, that's all you need. You can create an after insert trigger (assumption: there's users2messages table) that updates users table with a boolean flag indicating there's a message.

This approach is by far faster than counting indexes, be the index primary or secondary. When the user performs an action, you can update the users table with has_messages = 0, when a new message arrives - you update the table with has_messages = 1. It's simple, it works, it scales and using triggers to maintain it makes it easy and seamless.
I'm sure there will be nay-sayers who don't like triggers, you can do it manually at the point of associating a user with a new message.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

MjhMjh

1,96911112

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  triggers aside, looking up a row using the PK and also reading it to check the boolean is still more expensive than executing a single loose index scan. It gets worse when you also add a WHERE clause to check the boolean flag because of the low cardinality even if you index that field. Sorry to tell you you that, but you have a misunderstanding there.
  
  – Kaii
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Mjh i know about that.. but it's definitely more expensive than my suggested methods, because it contains (at least) 1x update + 1x select
  
  – FeHora
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Kaii SELECT has_messages FROM users WHERE id = 1; is the fastest query there is. It's an eq_ref which is infinitely faster than counting a number of records in the table. The boolean field is not in the WHERE clause, the primary key is. Please, assume better next time. In regards to updating the table: the update is fast as well, it handles a single row located using the primary key. If the field is already containing the value that you're updating to, no actual disk I/O occurs and there's a minimal performance penalty. Much less than counting the records. You can measure.
  
  – Mjh
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

-1

To have the information that someone has new messages - do exactly that. Update the field in users table (I'm assuming that's the name) when a new message is recorded in the system. You have the recipient's ID, that's all you need. You can create an after insert trigger (assumption: there's users2messages table) that updates users table with a boolean flag indicating there's a message.

This approach is by far faster than counting indexes, be the index primary or secondary. When the user performs an action, you can update the users table with has_messages = 0, when a new message arrives - you update the table with has_messages = 1. It's simple, it works, it scales and using triggers to maintain it makes it easy and seamless.
I'm sure there will be nay-sayers who don't like triggers, you can do it manually at the point of associating a user with a new message.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

MjhMjh

1,96911112

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  triggers aside, looking up a row using the PK and also reading it to check the boolean is still more expensive than executing a single loose index scan. It gets worse when you also add a WHERE clause to check the boolean flag because of the low cardinality even if you index that field. Sorry to tell you you that, but you have a misunderstanding there.
  
  – Kaii
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Mjh i know about that.. but it's definitely more expensive than my suggested methods, because it contains (at least) 1x update + 1x select
  
  – FeHora
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Kaii SELECT has_messages FROM users WHERE id = 1; is the fastest query there is. It's an eq_ref which is infinitely faster than counting a number of records in the table. The boolean field is not in the WHERE clause, the primary key is. Please, assume better next time. In regards to updating the table: the update is fast as well, it handles a single row located using the primary key. If the field is already containing the value that you're updating to, no actual disk I/O occurs and there's a minimal performance penalty. Much less than counting the records. You can measure.
  
  – Mjh
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

To have the information that someone has new messages - do exactly that. Update the field in users table (I'm assuming that's the name) when a new message is recorded in the system. You have the recipient's ID, that's all you need. You can create an after insert trigger (assumption: there's users2messages table) that updates users table with a boolean flag indicating there's a message.

This approach is by far faster than counting indexes, be the index primary or secondary. When the user performs an action, you can update the users table with has_messages = 0, when a new message arrives - you update the table with has_messages = 1. It's simple, it works, it scales and using triggers to maintain it makes it easy and seamless.
I'm sure there will be nay-sayers who don't like triggers, you can do it manually at the point of associating a user with a new message.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

MjhMjh

1,96911112

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

MjhMjh

1,96911112

answered 2 hours ago

MjhMjh

1,96911112

answered 2 hours ago

MjhMjh

1,96911112