|
|
|
// Copyright (c) 2011-present, Facebook, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
// This source code is licensed under both the GPLv2 (found in the
|
|
|
|
// COPYING file in the root directory) and Apache 2.0 License
|
|
|
|
// (found in the LICENSE.Apache file in the root directory).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#ifndef ROCKSDB_LITE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "rocksdb/utilities/write_batch_with_index.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <memory>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "db/column_family.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "db/db_impl/db_impl.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "db/merge_context.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "db/merge_helper.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "memory/arena.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "memtable/skiplist.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "options/db_options.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "rocksdb/comparator.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "rocksdb/iterator.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "util/cast_util.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "util/string_util.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "utilities/write_batch_with_index/write_batch_with_index_internal.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namespace ROCKSDB_NAMESPACE {
|
|
|
|
struct WriteBatchWithIndex::Rep {
|
|
|
|
explicit Rep(const Comparator* index_comparator, size_t reserved_bytes = 0,
|
|
|
|
size_t max_bytes = 0, bool _overwrite_key = false,
|
|
|
|
size_t protection_bytes_per_key = 0)
|
|
|
|
: write_batch(reserved_bytes, max_bytes, protection_bytes_per_key,
|
|
|
|
index_comparator ? index_comparator->timestamp_size() : 0),
|
|
|
|
comparator(index_comparator, &write_batch),
|
|
|
|
skip_list(comparator, &arena),
|
|
|
|
overwrite_key(_overwrite_key),
|
|
|
|
last_entry_offset(0),
|
|
|
|
last_sub_batch_offset(0),
|
|
|
|
sub_batch_cnt(1) {}
|
|
|
|
ReadableWriteBatch write_batch;
|
|
|
|
WriteBatchEntryComparator comparator;
|
|
|
|
Arena arena;
|
|
|
|
WriteBatchEntrySkipList skip_list;
|
|
|
|
bool overwrite_key;
|
|
|
|
size_t last_entry_offset;
|
|
|
|
// The starting offset of the last sub-batch. A sub-batch starts right before
|
|
|
|
// inserting a key that is a duplicate of a key in the last sub-batch. Zero,
|
|
|
|
// the default, means that no duplicate key is detected so far.
|
|
|
|
size_t last_sub_batch_offset;
|
|
|
|
// Total number of sub-batches in the write batch. Default is 1.
|
|
|
|
size_t sub_batch_cnt;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Remember current offset of internal write batch, which is used as
|
|
|
|
// the starting offset of the next record.
|
|
|
|
void SetLastEntryOffset() { last_entry_offset = write_batch.GetDataSize(); }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// In overwrite mode, find the existing entry for the same key and update it
|
|
|
|
// to point to the current entry.
|
|
|
|
// Return true if the key is found and updated.
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
bool UpdateExistingEntry(ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family, const Slice& key,
|
|
|
|
WriteType type);
|
|
|
|
bool UpdateExistingEntryWithCfId(uint32_t column_family_id, const Slice& key,
|
|
|
|
WriteType type);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Add the recent entry to the update.
|
|
|
|
// In overwrite mode, if key already exists in the index, update it.
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
void AddOrUpdateIndex(ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family, const Slice& key,
|
|
|
|
WriteType type);
|
|
|
|
void AddOrUpdateIndex(const Slice& key, WriteType type);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Allocate an index entry pointing to the last entry in the write batch and
|
|
|
|
// put it to skip list.
|
|
|
|
void AddNewEntry(uint32_t column_family_id);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Clear all updates buffered in this batch.
|
|
|
|
void Clear();
|
|
|
|
void ClearIndex();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Rebuild index by reading all records from the batch.
|
|
|
|
// Returns non-ok status on corruption.
|
|
|
|
Status ReBuildIndex();
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool WriteBatchWithIndex::Rep::UpdateExistingEntry(
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family, const Slice& key, WriteType type) {
|
|
|
|
uint32_t cf_id = GetColumnFamilyID(column_family);
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
return UpdateExistingEntryWithCfId(cf_id, key, type);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool WriteBatchWithIndex::Rep::UpdateExistingEntryWithCfId(
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
uint32_t column_family_id, const Slice& key, WriteType type) {
|
|
|
|
if (!overwrite_key) {
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WBWIIteratorImpl iter(column_family_id, &skip_list, &write_batch,
|
|
|
|
&comparator);
|
|
|
|
iter.Seek(key);
|
|
|
|
if (!iter.Valid()) {
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
} else if (!iter.MatchesKey(column_family_id, key)) {
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
// Move to the end of this key (NextKey-Prev)
|
|
|
|
iter.NextKey(); // Move to the next key
|
|
|
|
if (iter.Valid()) {
|
|
|
|
iter.Prev(); // Move back one entry
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
iter.SeekToLast();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
WriteBatchIndexEntry* non_const_entry =
|
|
|
|
const_cast<WriteBatchIndexEntry*>(iter.GetRawEntry());
|
|
|
|
if (LIKELY(last_sub_batch_offset <= non_const_entry->offset)) {
|
|
|
|
last_sub_batch_offset = last_entry_offset;
|
|
|
|
sub_batch_cnt++;
|
|
|
|
}
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
if (type == kMergeRecord) {
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
non_const_entry->offset = last_entry_offset;
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void WriteBatchWithIndex::Rep::AddOrUpdateIndex(
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family, const Slice& key, WriteType type) {
|
|
|
|
if (!UpdateExistingEntry(column_family, key, type)) {
|
|
|
|
uint32_t cf_id = GetColumnFamilyID(column_family);
|
|
|
|
const auto* cf_cmp = GetColumnFamilyUserComparator(column_family);
|
|
|
|
if (cf_cmp != nullptr) {
|
|
|
|
comparator.SetComparatorForCF(cf_id, cf_cmp);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
AddNewEntry(cf_id);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
void WriteBatchWithIndex::Rep::AddOrUpdateIndex(const Slice& key,
|
|
|
|
WriteType type) {
|
|
|
|
if (!UpdateExistingEntryWithCfId(0, key, type)) {
|
|
|
|
AddNewEntry(0);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void WriteBatchWithIndex::Rep::AddNewEntry(uint32_t column_family_id) {
|
|
|
|
const std::string& wb_data = write_batch.Data();
|
|
|
|
Slice entry_ptr = Slice(wb_data.data() + last_entry_offset,
|
|
|
|
wb_data.size() - last_entry_offset);
|
|
|
|
// Extract key
|
|
|
|
Slice key;
|
|
|
|
bool success =
|
|
|
|
ReadKeyFromWriteBatchEntry(&entry_ptr, &key, column_family_id != 0);
|
|
|
|
#ifdef NDEBUG
|
|
|
|
(void)success;
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
assert(success);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
auto* mem = arena.Allocate(sizeof(WriteBatchIndexEntry));
|
|
|
|
auto* index_entry =
|
|
|
|
new (mem) WriteBatchIndexEntry(last_entry_offset, column_family_id,
|
|
|
|
key.data() - wb_data.data(), key.size());
|
|
|
|
skip_list.Insert(index_entry);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void WriteBatchWithIndex::Rep::Clear() {
|
|
|
|
write_batch.Clear();
|
|
|
|
ClearIndex();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void WriteBatchWithIndex::Rep::ClearIndex() {
|
|
|
|
skip_list.~WriteBatchEntrySkipList();
|
|
|
|
arena.~Arena();
|
|
|
|
new (&arena) Arena();
|
|
|
|
new (&skip_list) WriteBatchEntrySkipList(comparator, &arena);
|
|
|
|
last_entry_offset = 0;
|
|
|
|
last_sub_batch_offset = 0;
|
|
|
|
sub_batch_cnt = 1;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::Rep::ReBuildIndex() {
|
|
|
|
Status s;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ClearIndex();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (write_batch.Count() == 0) {
|
|
|
|
// Nothing to re-index
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
size_t offset = WriteBatchInternal::GetFirstOffset(&write_batch);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slice input(write_batch.Data());
|
|
|
|
input.remove_prefix(offset);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Loop through all entries in Rep and add each one to the index
|
|
|
|
uint32_t found = 0;
|
|
|
|
while (s.ok() && !input.empty()) {
|
|
|
|
Slice key, value, blob, xid;
|
|
|
|
uint32_t column_family_id = 0; // default
|
|
|
|
char tag = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// set offset of current entry for call to AddNewEntry()
|
|
|
|
last_entry_offset = input.data() - write_batch.Data().data();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
s = ReadRecordFromWriteBatch(&input, &tag, &column_family_id, &key,
|
|
|
|
&value, &blob, &xid);
|
|
|
|
if (!s.ok()) {
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
switch (tag) {
|
|
|
|
case kTypeColumnFamilyValue:
|
|
|
|
case kTypeValue:
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
found++;
|
|
|
|
if (!UpdateExistingEntryWithCfId(column_family_id, key, kPutRecord)) {
|
|
|
|
AddNewEntry(column_family_id);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case kTypeColumnFamilyDeletion:
|
|
|
|
case kTypeDeletion:
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
found++;
|
|
|
|
if (!UpdateExistingEntryWithCfId(column_family_id, key,
|
|
|
|
kDeleteRecord)) {
|
|
|
|
AddNewEntry(column_family_id);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case kTypeColumnFamilySingleDeletion:
|
|
|
|
case kTypeSingleDeletion:
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
found++;
|
|
|
|
if (!UpdateExistingEntryWithCfId(column_family_id, key,
|
|
|
|
kSingleDeleteRecord)) {
|
|
|
|
AddNewEntry(column_family_id);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case kTypeColumnFamilyMerge:
|
|
|
|
case kTypeMerge:
|
|
|
|
found++;
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
if (!UpdateExistingEntryWithCfId(column_family_id, key, kMergeRecord)) {
|
|
|
|
AddNewEntry(column_family_id);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case kTypeLogData:
|
|
|
|
case kTypeBeginPrepareXID:
|
|
|
|
case kTypeBeginPersistedPrepareXID:
|
|
|
|
case kTypeBeginUnprepareXID:
|
|
|
|
case kTypeEndPrepareXID:
|
|
|
|
case kTypeCommitXID:
|
|
|
|
case kTypeCommitXIDAndTimestamp:
|
|
|
|
case kTypeRollbackXID:
|
|
|
|
case kTypeNoop:
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
default:
|
|
|
|
return Status::Corruption(
|
|
|
|
"unknown WriteBatch tag in ReBuildIndex",
|
|
|
|
std::to_string(static_cast<unsigned int>(tag)));
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (s.ok() && found != write_batch.Count()) {
|
|
|
|
s = Status::Corruption("WriteBatch has wrong count");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WriteBatchWithIndex::WriteBatchWithIndex(
|
|
|
|
const Comparator* default_index_comparator, size_t reserved_bytes,
|
|
|
|
bool overwrite_key, size_t max_bytes, size_t protection_bytes_per_key)
|
|
|
|
: rep(new Rep(default_index_comparator, reserved_bytes, max_bytes,
|
|
|
|
overwrite_key, protection_bytes_per_key)) {}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WriteBatchWithIndex::~WriteBatchWithIndex() {}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WriteBatchWithIndex::WriteBatchWithIndex(WriteBatchWithIndex&&) = default;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WriteBatchWithIndex& WriteBatchWithIndex::operator=(WriteBatchWithIndex&&) =
|
|
|
|
default;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WriteBatch* WriteBatchWithIndex::GetWriteBatch() { return &rep->write_batch; }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
size_t WriteBatchWithIndex::SubBatchCnt() { return rep->sub_batch_cnt; }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WBWIIterator* WriteBatchWithIndex::NewIterator() {
|
|
|
|
return new WBWIIteratorImpl(0, &(rep->skip_list), &rep->write_batch,
|
|
|
|
&(rep->comparator));
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WBWIIterator* WriteBatchWithIndex::NewIterator(
|
|
|
|
ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family) {
|
|
|
|
return new WBWIIteratorImpl(GetColumnFamilyID(column_family),
|
|
|
|
&(rep->skip_list), &rep->write_batch,
|
|
|
|
&(rep->comparator));
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iterator* WriteBatchWithIndex::NewIteratorWithBase(
|
|
|
|
ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family, Iterator* base_iterator,
|
|
|
|
const ReadOptions* read_options) {
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
auto wbwiii =
|
|
|
|
new WBWIIteratorImpl(GetColumnFamilyID(column_family), &(rep->skip_list),
|
|
|
|
&rep->write_batch, &rep->comparator);
|
|
|
|
return new BaseDeltaIterator(column_family, base_iterator, wbwiii,
|
|
|
|
GetColumnFamilyUserComparator(column_family),
|
|
|
|
read_options);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iterator* WriteBatchWithIndex::NewIteratorWithBase(Iterator* base_iterator) {
|
|
|
|
// default column family's comparator
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
auto wbwiii = new WBWIIteratorImpl(0, &(rep->skip_list), &rep->write_batch,
|
|
|
|
&rep->comparator);
|
|
|
|
return new BaseDeltaIterator(nullptr, base_iterator, wbwiii,
|
|
|
|
rep->comparator.default_comparator());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::Put(ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family,
|
|
|
|
const Slice& key, const Slice& value) {
|
|
|
|
rep->SetLastEntryOffset();
|
|
|
|
auto s = rep->write_batch.Put(column_family, key, value);
|
|
|
|
if (s.ok()) {
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
rep->AddOrUpdateIndex(column_family, key, kPutRecord);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::Put(const Slice& key, const Slice& value) {
|
|
|
|
rep->SetLastEntryOffset();
|
|
|
|
auto s = rep->write_batch.Put(key, value);
|
|
|
|
if (s.ok()) {
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
rep->AddOrUpdateIndex(key, kPutRecord);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Revise APIs related to user-defined timestamp (#8946)
Summary:
ajkr reminded me that we have a rule of not including per-kv related data in `WriteOptions`.
Namely, `WriteOptions` should not include information about "what-to-write", but should just
include information about "how-to-write".
According to this rule, `WriteOptions::timestamp` (experimental) is clearly a violation. Therefore,
this PR removes `WriteOptions::timestamp` for compliance.
After the removal, we need to pass timestamp info via another set of APIs. This PR proposes a set
of overloaded functions `Put(write_opts, key, value, ts)`, `Delete(write_opts, key, ts)`, and
`SingleDelete(write_opts, key, ts)`. Planned to add `Write(write_opts, batch, ts)`, but its complexity
made me reconsider doing it in another PR (maybe).
For better checking and returning error early, we also add a new set of APIs to `WriteBatch` that take
extra `timestamp` information when writing to `WriteBatch`es.
These set of APIs in `WriteBatchWithIndex` are currently not supported, and are on our TODO list.
Removed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamps()` and renamed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamp()` to
`WriteBatch::UpdateTimestamps()` since this method require that all keys have space for timestamps
allocated already and multiple timestamps can be updated.
The constructor of `WriteBatch` now takes a fourth argument `default_cf_ts_sz` which is the timestamp
size of the default column family. This will be used to allocate space when calling APIs that do not
specify a column family handle.
Also, updated `DB::Get()`, `DB::MultiGet()`, `DB::NewIterator()`, `DB::NewIterators()` methods, replacing
some assertions about timestamp to returning Status code.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8946
Test Plan:
make check
./db_bench -benchmarks=fillseq,fillrandom,readrandom,readseq,deleterandom -user_timestamp_size=8
./db_stress --user_timestamp_size=8 -nooverwritepercent=0 -test_secondary=0 -secondary_catch_up_one_in=0 -continuous_verification_interval=0
Make sure there is no perf regression by running the following
```
./db_bench_opt -db=/dev/shm/rocksdb -use_existing_db=0 -level0_stop_writes_trigger=256 -level0_slowdown_writes_trigger=256 -level0_file_num_compaction_trigger=256 -disable_wal=1 -duration=10 -benchmarks=fillrandom
```
Before this PR
```
DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb]
fillrandom : 1.831 micros/op 546235 ops/sec; 60.4 MB/s
```
After this PR
```
DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb]
fillrandom : 1.820 micros/op 549404 ops/sec; 60.8 MB/s
```
Reviewed By: ltamasi
Differential Revision: D33721359
Pulled By: riversand963
fbshipit-source-id: c131561534272c120ffb80711d42748d21badf09
3 years ago
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::Put(ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family,
|
|
|
|
const Slice& /*key*/, const Slice& /*ts*/,
|
|
|
|
const Slice& /*value*/) {
|
|
|
|
if (!column_family) {
|
|
|
|
return Status::InvalidArgument("column family handle cannot be nullptr");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TODO: support WBWI::Put() with timestamp.
|
|
|
|
return Status::NotSupported();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::Delete(ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family,
|
|
|
|
const Slice& key) {
|
|
|
|
rep->SetLastEntryOffset();
|
|
|
|
auto s = rep->write_batch.Delete(column_family, key);
|
|
|
|
if (s.ok()) {
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
rep->AddOrUpdateIndex(column_family, key, kDeleteRecord);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::Delete(const Slice& key) {
|
|
|
|
rep->SetLastEntryOffset();
|
|
|
|
auto s = rep->write_batch.Delete(key);
|
|
|
|
if (s.ok()) {
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
rep->AddOrUpdateIndex(key, kDeleteRecord);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Revise APIs related to user-defined timestamp (#8946)
Summary:
ajkr reminded me that we have a rule of not including per-kv related data in `WriteOptions`.
Namely, `WriteOptions` should not include information about "what-to-write", but should just
include information about "how-to-write".
According to this rule, `WriteOptions::timestamp` (experimental) is clearly a violation. Therefore,
this PR removes `WriteOptions::timestamp` for compliance.
After the removal, we need to pass timestamp info via another set of APIs. This PR proposes a set
of overloaded functions `Put(write_opts, key, value, ts)`, `Delete(write_opts, key, ts)`, and
`SingleDelete(write_opts, key, ts)`. Planned to add `Write(write_opts, batch, ts)`, but its complexity
made me reconsider doing it in another PR (maybe).
For better checking and returning error early, we also add a new set of APIs to `WriteBatch` that take
extra `timestamp` information when writing to `WriteBatch`es.
These set of APIs in `WriteBatchWithIndex` are currently not supported, and are on our TODO list.
Removed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamps()` and renamed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamp()` to
`WriteBatch::UpdateTimestamps()` since this method require that all keys have space for timestamps
allocated already and multiple timestamps can be updated.
The constructor of `WriteBatch` now takes a fourth argument `default_cf_ts_sz` which is the timestamp
size of the default column family. This will be used to allocate space when calling APIs that do not
specify a column family handle.
Also, updated `DB::Get()`, `DB::MultiGet()`, `DB::NewIterator()`, `DB::NewIterators()` methods, replacing
some assertions about timestamp to returning Status code.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8946
Test Plan:
make check
./db_bench -benchmarks=fillseq,fillrandom,readrandom,readseq,deleterandom -user_timestamp_size=8
./db_stress --user_timestamp_size=8 -nooverwritepercent=0 -test_secondary=0 -secondary_catch_up_one_in=0 -continuous_verification_interval=0
Make sure there is no perf regression by running the following
```
./db_bench_opt -db=/dev/shm/rocksdb -use_existing_db=0 -level0_stop_writes_trigger=256 -level0_slowdown_writes_trigger=256 -level0_file_num_compaction_trigger=256 -disable_wal=1 -duration=10 -benchmarks=fillrandom
```
Before this PR
```
DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb]
fillrandom : 1.831 micros/op 546235 ops/sec; 60.4 MB/s
```
After this PR
```
DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb]
fillrandom : 1.820 micros/op 549404 ops/sec; 60.8 MB/s
```
Reviewed By: ltamasi
Differential Revision: D33721359
Pulled By: riversand963
fbshipit-source-id: c131561534272c120ffb80711d42748d21badf09
3 years ago
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::Delete(ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family,
|
|
|
|
const Slice& /*key*/, const Slice& /*ts*/) {
|
|
|
|
if (!column_family) {
|
|
|
|
return Status::InvalidArgument("column family handle cannot be nullptr");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TODO: support WBWI::Delete() with timestamp.
|
|
|
|
return Status::NotSupported();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::SingleDelete(ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family,
|
|
|
|
const Slice& key) {
|
Support for SingleDelete()
Summary:
This patch fixes #7460559. It introduces SingleDelete as a new database
operation. This operation can be used to delete keys that were never
overwritten (no put following another put of the same key). If an overwritten
key is single deleted the behavior is undefined. Single deletion of a
non-existent key has no effect but multiple consecutive single deletions are
not allowed (see limitations).
In contrast to the conventional Delete() operation, the deletion entry is
removed along with the value when the two are lined up in a compaction. Note:
The semantics are similar to @igor's prototype that allowed to have this
behavior on the granularity of a column family (
https://reviews.facebook.net/D42093 ). This new patch, however, is more
aggressive when it comes to removing tombstones: It removes the SingleDelete
together with the value whenever there is no snapshot between them while the
older patch only did this when the sequence number of the deletion was older
than the earliest snapshot.
Most of the complex additions are in the Compaction Iterator, all other changes
should be relatively straightforward. The patch also includes basic support for
single deletions in db_stress and db_bench.
Limitations:
- Not compatible with cuckoo hash tables
- Single deletions cannot be used in combination with merges and normal
deletions on the same key (other keys are not affected by this)
- Consecutive single deletions are currently not allowed (and older version of
this patch supported this so it could be resurrected if needed)
Test Plan: make all check
Reviewers: yhchiang, sdong, rven, anthony, yoshinorim, igor
Reviewed By: igor
Subscribers: maykov, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D43179
9 years ago
|
|
|
rep->SetLastEntryOffset();
|
|
|
|
auto s = rep->write_batch.SingleDelete(column_family, key);
|
|
|
|
if (s.ok()) {
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
rep->AddOrUpdateIndex(column_family, key, kSingleDeleteRecord);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::SingleDelete(const Slice& key) {
|
|
|
|
rep->SetLastEntryOffset();
|
|
|
|
auto s = rep->write_batch.SingleDelete(key);
|
|
|
|
if (s.ok()) {
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
rep->AddOrUpdateIndex(key, kSingleDeleteRecord);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
Support for SingleDelete()
Summary:
This patch fixes #7460559. It introduces SingleDelete as a new database
operation. This operation can be used to delete keys that were never
overwritten (no put following another put of the same key). If an overwritten
key is single deleted the behavior is undefined. Single deletion of a
non-existent key has no effect but multiple consecutive single deletions are
not allowed (see limitations).
In contrast to the conventional Delete() operation, the deletion entry is
removed along with the value when the two are lined up in a compaction. Note:
The semantics are similar to @igor's prototype that allowed to have this
behavior on the granularity of a column family (
https://reviews.facebook.net/D42093 ). This new patch, however, is more
aggressive when it comes to removing tombstones: It removes the SingleDelete
together with the value whenever there is no snapshot between them while the
older patch only did this when the sequence number of the deletion was older
than the earliest snapshot.
Most of the complex additions are in the Compaction Iterator, all other changes
should be relatively straightforward. The patch also includes basic support for
single deletions in db_stress and db_bench.
Limitations:
- Not compatible with cuckoo hash tables
- Single deletions cannot be used in combination with merges and normal
deletions on the same key (other keys are not affected by this)
- Consecutive single deletions are currently not allowed (and older version of
this patch supported this so it could be resurrected if needed)
Test Plan: make all check
Reviewers: yhchiang, sdong, rven, anthony, yoshinorim, igor
Reviewed By: igor
Subscribers: maykov, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D43179
9 years ago
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Revise APIs related to user-defined timestamp (#8946)
Summary:
ajkr reminded me that we have a rule of not including per-kv related data in `WriteOptions`.
Namely, `WriteOptions` should not include information about "what-to-write", but should just
include information about "how-to-write".
According to this rule, `WriteOptions::timestamp` (experimental) is clearly a violation. Therefore,
this PR removes `WriteOptions::timestamp` for compliance.
After the removal, we need to pass timestamp info via another set of APIs. This PR proposes a set
of overloaded functions `Put(write_opts, key, value, ts)`, `Delete(write_opts, key, ts)`, and
`SingleDelete(write_opts, key, ts)`. Planned to add `Write(write_opts, batch, ts)`, but its complexity
made me reconsider doing it in another PR (maybe).
For better checking and returning error early, we also add a new set of APIs to `WriteBatch` that take
extra `timestamp` information when writing to `WriteBatch`es.
These set of APIs in `WriteBatchWithIndex` are currently not supported, and are on our TODO list.
Removed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamps()` and renamed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamp()` to
`WriteBatch::UpdateTimestamps()` since this method require that all keys have space for timestamps
allocated already and multiple timestamps can be updated.
The constructor of `WriteBatch` now takes a fourth argument `default_cf_ts_sz` which is the timestamp
size of the default column family. This will be used to allocate space when calling APIs that do not
specify a column family handle.
Also, updated `DB::Get()`, `DB::MultiGet()`, `DB::NewIterator()`, `DB::NewIterators()` methods, replacing
some assertions about timestamp to returning Status code.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8946
Test Plan:
make check
./db_bench -benchmarks=fillseq,fillrandom,readrandom,readseq,deleterandom -user_timestamp_size=8
./db_stress --user_timestamp_size=8 -nooverwritepercent=0 -test_secondary=0 -secondary_catch_up_one_in=0 -continuous_verification_interval=0
Make sure there is no perf regression by running the following
```
./db_bench_opt -db=/dev/shm/rocksdb -use_existing_db=0 -level0_stop_writes_trigger=256 -level0_slowdown_writes_trigger=256 -level0_file_num_compaction_trigger=256 -disable_wal=1 -duration=10 -benchmarks=fillrandom
```
Before this PR
```
DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb]
fillrandom : 1.831 micros/op 546235 ops/sec; 60.4 MB/s
```
After this PR
```
DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb]
fillrandom : 1.820 micros/op 549404 ops/sec; 60.8 MB/s
```
Reviewed By: ltamasi
Differential Revision: D33721359
Pulled By: riversand963
fbshipit-source-id: c131561534272c120ffb80711d42748d21badf09
3 years ago
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::SingleDelete(ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family,
|
|
|
|
const Slice& /*key*/,
|
|
|
|
const Slice& /*ts*/) {
|
|
|
|
if (!column_family) {
|
|
|
|
return Status::InvalidArgument("column family handle cannot be nullptr");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TODO: support WBWI::SingleDelete() with timestamp.
|
|
|
|
return Status::NotSupported();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::Merge(ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family,
|
|
|
|
const Slice& key, const Slice& value) {
|
Support for SingleDelete()
Summary:
This patch fixes #7460559. It introduces SingleDelete as a new database
operation. This operation can be used to delete keys that were never
overwritten (no put following another put of the same key). If an overwritten
key is single deleted the behavior is undefined. Single deletion of a
non-existent key has no effect but multiple consecutive single deletions are
not allowed (see limitations).
In contrast to the conventional Delete() operation, the deletion entry is
removed along with the value when the two are lined up in a compaction. Note:
The semantics are similar to @igor's prototype that allowed to have this
behavior on the granularity of a column family (
https://reviews.facebook.net/D42093 ). This new patch, however, is more
aggressive when it comes to removing tombstones: It removes the SingleDelete
together with the value whenever there is no snapshot between them while the
older patch only did this when the sequence number of the deletion was older
than the earliest snapshot.
Most of the complex additions are in the Compaction Iterator, all other changes
should be relatively straightforward. The patch also includes basic support for
single deletions in db_stress and db_bench.
Limitations:
- Not compatible with cuckoo hash tables
- Single deletions cannot be used in combination with merges and normal
deletions on the same key (other keys are not affected by this)
- Consecutive single deletions are currently not allowed (and older version of
this patch supported this so it could be resurrected if needed)
Test Plan: make all check
Reviewers: yhchiang, sdong, rven, anthony, yoshinorim, igor
Reviewed By: igor
Subscribers: maykov, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D43179
9 years ago
|
|
|
rep->SetLastEntryOffset();
|
|
|
|
auto s = rep->write_batch.Merge(column_family, key, value);
|
|
|
|
if (s.ok()) {
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
rep->AddOrUpdateIndex(column_family, key, kMergeRecord);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::Merge(const Slice& key, const Slice& value) {
|
|
|
|
rep->SetLastEntryOffset();
|
|
|
|
auto s = rep->write_batch.Merge(key, value);
|
|
|
|
if (s.ok()) {
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
rep->AddOrUpdateIndex(key, kMergeRecord);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::PutLogData(const Slice& blob) {
|
|
|
|
return rep->write_batch.PutLogData(blob);
|
Support for SingleDelete()
Summary:
This patch fixes #7460559. It introduces SingleDelete as a new database
operation. This operation can be used to delete keys that were never
overwritten (no put following another put of the same key). If an overwritten
key is single deleted the behavior is undefined. Single deletion of a
non-existent key has no effect but multiple consecutive single deletions are
not allowed (see limitations).
In contrast to the conventional Delete() operation, the deletion entry is
removed along with the value when the two are lined up in a compaction. Note:
The semantics are similar to @igor's prototype that allowed to have this
behavior on the granularity of a column family (
https://reviews.facebook.net/D42093 ). This new patch, however, is more
aggressive when it comes to removing tombstones: It removes the SingleDelete
together with the value whenever there is no snapshot between them while the
older patch only did this when the sequence number of the deletion was older
than the earliest snapshot.
Most of the complex additions are in the Compaction Iterator, all other changes
should be relatively straightforward. The patch also includes basic support for
single deletions in db_stress and db_bench.
Limitations:
- Not compatible with cuckoo hash tables
- Single deletions cannot be used in combination with merges and normal
deletions on the same key (other keys are not affected by this)
- Consecutive single deletions are currently not allowed (and older version of
this patch supported this so it could be resurrected if needed)
Test Plan: make all check
Reviewers: yhchiang, sdong, rven, anthony, yoshinorim, igor
Reviewed By: igor
Subscribers: maykov, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D43179
9 years ago
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void WriteBatchWithIndex::Clear() { rep->Clear(); }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::GetFromBatch(ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family,
|
|
|
|
const DBOptions& options,
|
|
|
|
const Slice& key, std::string* value) {
|
|
|
|
Status s;
|
|
|
|
WriteBatchWithIndexInternal wbwii(&options, column_family);
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
auto result = wbwii.GetFromBatch(this, key, value, &s);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
switch (result) {
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
case WBWIIteratorImpl::kFound:
|
|
|
|
case WBWIIteratorImpl::kError:
|
Pessimistic Transactions
Summary:
Initial implementation of Pessimistic Transactions. This diff contains the api changes discussed in D38913. This diff is pretty large, so let me know if people would prefer to meet up to discuss it.
MyRocks folks: please take a look at the API in include/rocksdb/utilities/transaction[_db].h and let me know if you have any issues.
Also, you'll notice a couple of TODOs in the implementation of RollbackToSavePoint(). After chatting with Siying, I'm going to send out a separate diff for an alternate implementation of this feature that implements the rollback inside of WriteBatch/WriteBatchWithIndex. We can then decide which route is preferable.
Next, I'm planning on doing some perf testing and then integrating this diff into MongoRocks for further testing.
Test Plan: Unit tests, db_bench parallel testing.
Reviewers: igor, rven, sdong, yhchiang, yoshinorim
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: hermanlee4, maykov, spetrunia, leveldb, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D40869
10 years ago
|
|
|
// use returned status
|
|
|
|
break;
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
case WBWIIteratorImpl::kDeleted:
|
|
|
|
case WBWIIteratorImpl::kNotFound:
|
Pessimistic Transactions
Summary:
Initial implementation of Pessimistic Transactions. This diff contains the api changes discussed in D38913. This diff is pretty large, so let me know if people would prefer to meet up to discuss it.
MyRocks folks: please take a look at the API in include/rocksdb/utilities/transaction[_db].h and let me know if you have any issues.
Also, you'll notice a couple of TODOs in the implementation of RollbackToSavePoint(). After chatting with Siying, I'm going to send out a separate diff for an alternate implementation of this feature that implements the rollback inside of WriteBatch/WriteBatchWithIndex. We can then decide which route is preferable.
Next, I'm planning on doing some perf testing and then integrating this diff into MongoRocks for further testing.
Test Plan: Unit tests, db_bench parallel testing.
Reviewers: igor, rven, sdong, yhchiang, yoshinorim
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: hermanlee4, maykov, spetrunia, leveldb, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D40869
10 years ago
|
|
|
s = Status::NotFound();
|
|
|
|
break;
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
case WBWIIteratorImpl::kMergeInProgress:
|
Simplify querying of merge results
Summary:
While working on supporting mixing merge operators with
single deletes ( https://reviews.facebook.net/D43179 ),
I realized that returning and dealing with merge results
can be made simpler. Submitting this as a separate diff
because it is not directly related to single deletes.
Before, callers of merge helper had to retrieve the merge
result in one of two ways depending on whether the merge
was successful or not (success = result of merge was single
kTypeValue). For successful merges, the caller could query
the resulting key/value pair and for unsuccessful merges,
the result could be retrieved in the form of two deques of
keys and values. However, with single deletes, a successful merge
does not return a single key/value pair (if merge
operands are merged with a single delete, we have to generate
a value and keep the original single delete around to make
sure that we are not accidentially producing a key overwrite).
In addition, the two existing call sites of the merge
helper were taking the same actions independently from whether
the merge was successful or not, so this patch simplifies that.
Test Plan: make clean all check
Reviewers: rven, sdong, yhchiang, anthony, igor
Reviewed By: igor
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D43353
9 years ago
|
|
|
s = Status::MergeInProgress();
|
Pessimistic Transactions
Summary:
Initial implementation of Pessimistic Transactions. This diff contains the api changes discussed in D38913. This diff is pretty large, so let me know if people would prefer to meet up to discuss it.
MyRocks folks: please take a look at the API in include/rocksdb/utilities/transaction[_db].h and let me know if you have any issues.
Also, you'll notice a couple of TODOs in the implementation of RollbackToSavePoint(). After chatting with Siying, I'm going to send out a separate diff for an alternate implementation of this feature that implements the rollback inside of WriteBatch/WriteBatchWithIndex. We can then decide which route is preferable.
Next, I'm planning on doing some perf testing and then integrating this diff into MongoRocks for further testing.
Test Plan: Unit tests, db_bench parallel testing.
Reviewers: igor, rven, sdong, yhchiang, yoshinorim
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: hermanlee4, maykov, spetrunia, leveldb, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D40869
10 years ago
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
default:
|
|
|
|
assert(false);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::GetFromBatchAndDB(DB* db,
|
|
|
|
const ReadOptions& read_options,
|
|
|
|
const Slice& key,
|
|
|
|
std::string* value) {
|
|
|
|
assert(value != nullptr);
|
|
|
|
PinnableSlice pinnable_val(value);
|
|
|
|
assert(!pinnable_val.IsPinned());
|
|
|
|
auto s = GetFromBatchAndDB(db, read_options, db->DefaultColumnFamily(), key,
|
|
|
|
&pinnable_val);
|
|
|
|
if (s.ok() && pinnable_val.IsPinned()) {
|
|
|
|
value->assign(pinnable_val.data(), pinnable_val.size());
|
|
|
|
} // else value is already assigned
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::GetFromBatchAndDB(DB* db,
|
|
|
|
const ReadOptions& read_options,
|
|
|
|
const Slice& key,
|
|
|
|
PinnableSlice* pinnable_val) {
|
|
|
|
return GetFromBatchAndDB(db, read_options, db->DefaultColumnFamily(), key,
|
|
|
|
pinnable_val);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::GetFromBatchAndDB(DB* db,
|
|
|
|
const ReadOptions& read_options,
|
|
|
|
ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family,
|
|
|
|
const Slice& key,
|
|
|
|
std::string* value) {
|
|
|
|
assert(value != nullptr);
|
|
|
|
PinnableSlice pinnable_val(value);
|
|
|
|
assert(!pinnable_val.IsPinned());
|
|
|
|
auto s =
|
|
|
|
GetFromBatchAndDB(db, read_options, column_family, key, &pinnable_val);
|
|
|
|
if (s.ok() && pinnable_val.IsPinned()) {
|
|
|
|
value->assign(pinnable_val.data(), pinnable_val.size());
|
|
|
|
} // else value is already assigned
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::GetFromBatchAndDB(DB* db,
|
|
|
|
const ReadOptions& read_options,
|
|
|
|
ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family,
|
|
|
|
const Slice& key,
|
|
|
|
PinnableSlice* pinnable_val) {
|
|
|
|
return GetFromBatchAndDB(db, read_options, column_family, key, pinnable_val,
|
|
|
|
nullptr);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::GetFromBatchAndDB(
|
|
|
|
DB* db, const ReadOptions& read_options, ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family,
|
|
|
|
const Slice& key, PinnableSlice* pinnable_val, ReadCallback* callback) {
|
|
|
|
const Comparator* const ucmp = rep->comparator.GetComparator(column_family);
|
|
|
|
size_t ts_sz = ucmp ? ucmp->timestamp_size() : 0;
|
|
|
|
if (ts_sz > 0 && !read_options.timestamp) {
|
|
|
|
return Status::InvalidArgument("Must specify timestamp");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status s;
|
|
|
|
WriteBatchWithIndexInternal wbwii(db, column_family);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Since the lifetime of the WriteBatch is the same as that of the transaction
|
|
|
|
// we cannot pin it as otherwise the returned value will not be available
|
|
|
|
// after the transaction finishes.
|
|
|
|
std::string& batch_value = *pinnable_val->GetSelf();
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
auto result = wbwii.GetFromBatch(this, key, &batch_value, &s);
|
|
|
|
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
if (result == WBWIIteratorImpl::kFound) {
|
|
|
|
pinnable_val->PinSelf();
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
} else if (!s.ok() || result == WBWIIteratorImpl::kError) {
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
} else if (result == WBWIIteratorImpl::kDeleted) {
|
|
|
|
return Status::NotFound();
|
|
|
|
}
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
assert(result == WBWIIteratorImpl::kMergeInProgress ||
|
|
|
|
result == WBWIIteratorImpl::kNotFound);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Did not find key in batch OR could not resolve Merges. Try DB.
|
|
|
|
if (!callback) {
|
|
|
|
s = db->Get(read_options, column_family, key, pinnable_val);
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
New API to get all merge operands for a Key (#5604)
Summary:
This is a new API added to db.h to allow for fetching all merge operands associated with a Key. The main motivation for this API is to support use cases where doing a full online merge is not necessary as it is performance sensitive. Example use-cases:
1. Update subset of columns and read subset of columns -
Imagine a SQL Table, a row is encoded as a K/V pair (as it is done in MyRocks). If there are many columns and users only updated one of them, we can use merge operator to reduce write amplification. While users only read one or two columns in the read query, this feature can avoid a full merging of the whole row, and save some CPU.
2. Updating very few attributes in a value which is a JSON-like document -
Updating one attribute can be done efficiently using merge operator, while reading back one attribute can be done more efficiently if we don't need to do a full merge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
API :
Status GetMergeOperands(
const ReadOptions& options, ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family,
const Slice& key, PinnableSlice* merge_operands,
GetMergeOperandsOptions* get_merge_operands_options,
int* number_of_operands)
Example usage :
int size = 100;
int number_of_operands = 0;
std::vector<PinnableSlice> values(size);
GetMergeOperandsOptions merge_operands_info;
db_->GetMergeOperands(ReadOptions(), db_->DefaultColumnFamily(), "k1", values.data(), merge_operands_info, &number_of_operands);
Description :
Returns all the merge operands corresponding to the key. If the number of merge operands in DB is greater than merge_operands_options.expected_max_number_of_operands no merge operands are returned and status is Incomplete. Merge operands returned are in the order of insertion.
merge_operands-> Points to an array of at-least merge_operands_options.expected_max_number_of_operands and the caller is responsible for allocating it. If the status returned is Incomplete then number_of_operands will contain the total number of merge operands found in DB for key.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5604
Test Plan:
Added unit test and perf test in db_bench that can be run using the command:
./db_bench -benchmarks=getmergeoperands --merge_operator=sortlist
Differential Revision: D16657366
Pulled By: vjnadimpalli
fbshipit-source-id: 0faadd752351745224ee12d4ae9ef3cb529951bf
5 years ago
|
|
|
DBImpl::GetImplOptions get_impl_options;
|
|
|
|
get_impl_options.column_family = column_family;
|
|
|
|
get_impl_options.value = pinnable_val;
|
|
|
|
get_impl_options.callback = callback;
|
|
|
|
s = static_cast_with_check<DBImpl>(db->GetRootDB())
|
New API to get all merge operands for a Key (#5604)
Summary:
This is a new API added to db.h to allow for fetching all merge operands associated with a Key. The main motivation for this API is to support use cases where doing a full online merge is not necessary as it is performance sensitive. Example use-cases:
1. Update subset of columns and read subset of columns -
Imagine a SQL Table, a row is encoded as a K/V pair (as it is done in MyRocks). If there are many columns and users only updated one of them, we can use merge operator to reduce write amplification. While users only read one or two columns in the read query, this feature can avoid a full merging of the whole row, and save some CPU.
2. Updating very few attributes in a value which is a JSON-like document -
Updating one attribute can be done efficiently using merge operator, while reading back one attribute can be done more efficiently if we don't need to do a full merge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
API :
Status GetMergeOperands(
const ReadOptions& options, ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family,
const Slice& key, PinnableSlice* merge_operands,
GetMergeOperandsOptions* get_merge_operands_options,
int* number_of_operands)
Example usage :
int size = 100;
int number_of_operands = 0;
std::vector<PinnableSlice> values(size);
GetMergeOperandsOptions merge_operands_info;
db_->GetMergeOperands(ReadOptions(), db_->DefaultColumnFamily(), "k1", values.data(), merge_operands_info, &number_of_operands);
Description :
Returns all the merge operands corresponding to the key. If the number of merge operands in DB is greater than merge_operands_options.expected_max_number_of_operands no merge operands are returned and status is Incomplete. Merge operands returned are in the order of insertion.
merge_operands-> Points to an array of at-least merge_operands_options.expected_max_number_of_operands and the caller is responsible for allocating it. If the status returned is Incomplete then number_of_operands will contain the total number of merge operands found in DB for key.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5604
Test Plan:
Added unit test and perf test in db_bench that can be run using the command:
./db_bench -benchmarks=getmergeoperands --merge_operator=sortlist
Differential Revision: D16657366
Pulled By: vjnadimpalli
fbshipit-source-id: 0faadd752351745224ee12d4ae9ef3cb529951bf
5 years ago
|
|
|
->GetImpl(read_options, key, get_impl_options);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (s.ok() || s.IsNotFound()) { // DB Get Succeeded
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
if (result == WBWIIteratorImpl::kMergeInProgress) {
|
|
|
|
// Merge result from DB with merges in Batch
|
|
|
|
std::string merge_result;
|
|
|
|
if (s.ok()) {
|
|
|
|
s = wbwii.MergeKey(key, pinnable_val, &merge_result);
|
|
|
|
} else { // Key not present in db (s.IsNotFound())
|
|
|
|
s = wbwii.MergeKey(key, nullptr, &merge_result);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s.ok()) {
|
Fix WriteBatchWithIndex with MergeOperator bug (#5577)
Summary:
```
TEST_F(WriteBatchWithIndexTest, TestGetFromBatchAndDBMerge3) {
DB* db;
Options options;
options.create_if_missing = true;
std::string dbname = test::PerThreadDBPath("write_batch_with_index_test");
options.merge_operator = MergeOperators::CreateFromStringId("stringappend");
DestroyDB(dbname, options);
Status s = DB::Open(options, dbname, &db);
assert(s.ok());
ReadOptions read_options;
WriteOptions write_options;
FlushOptions flush_options;
std::string value;
WriteBatchWithIndex batch;
ASSERT_OK(db->Put(write_options, "A", "1"));
ASSERT_OK(db->Flush(flush_options, db->DefaultColumnFamily()));
ASSERT_OK(batch.Merge("A", "2"));
ASSERT_OK(batch.GetFromBatchAndDB(db, read_options, "A", &value));
ASSERT_EQ(value, "1,2");
delete db;
DestroyDB(dbname, options);
}
```
Fix ASSERT in batch.GetFromBatchAndDB()
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5577
Differential Revision: D16379847
fbshipit-source-id: b1320e24ec8e71350c525083cc0a16180a63f752
5 years ago
|
|
|
pinnable_val->Reset();
|
|
|
|
*pinnable_val->GetSelf() = std::move(merge_result);
|
|
|
|
pinnable_val->PinSelf();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void WriteBatchWithIndex::MultiGetFromBatchAndDB(
|
|
|
|
DB* db, const ReadOptions& read_options, ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family,
|
|
|
|
const size_t num_keys, const Slice* keys, PinnableSlice* values,
|
|
|
|
Status* statuses, bool sorted_input) {
|
|
|
|
MultiGetFromBatchAndDB(db, read_options, column_family, num_keys, keys,
|
|
|
|
values, statuses, sorted_input, nullptr);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void WriteBatchWithIndex::MultiGetFromBatchAndDB(
|
|
|
|
DB* db, const ReadOptions& read_options, ColumnFamilyHandle* column_family,
|
|
|
|
const size_t num_keys, const Slice* keys, PinnableSlice* values,
|
|
|
|
Status* statuses, bool sorted_input, ReadCallback* callback) {
|
|
|
|
const Comparator* const ucmp = rep->comparator.GetComparator(column_family);
|
|
|
|
size_t ts_sz = ucmp ? ucmp->timestamp_size() : 0;
|
|
|
|
if (ts_sz > 0 && !read_options.timestamp) {
|
|
|
|
for (size_t i = 0; i < num_keys; ++i) {
|
|
|
|
statuses[i] = Status::InvalidArgument("Must specify timestamp");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WriteBatchWithIndexInternal wbwii(db, column_family);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
autovector<KeyContext, MultiGetContext::MAX_BATCH_SIZE> key_context;
|
|
|
|
autovector<KeyContext*, MultiGetContext::MAX_BATCH_SIZE> sorted_keys;
|
|
|
|
// To hold merges from the write batch
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
autovector<std::pair<WBWIIteratorImpl::Result, MergeContext>,
|
|
|
|
MultiGetContext::MAX_BATCH_SIZE>
|
|
|
|
merges;
|
|
|
|
// Since the lifetime of the WriteBatch is the same as that of the transaction
|
|
|
|
// we cannot pin it as otherwise the returned value will not be available
|
|
|
|
// after the transaction finishes.
|
|
|
|
for (size_t i = 0; i < num_keys; ++i) {
|
|
|
|
MergeContext merge_context;
|
|
|
|
std::string batch_value;
|
|
|
|
Status* s = &statuses[i];
|
|
|
|
PinnableSlice* pinnable_val = &values[i];
|
|
|
|
pinnable_val->Reset();
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
auto result =
|
|
|
|
wbwii.GetFromBatch(this, keys[i], &merge_context, &batch_value, s);
|
|
|
|
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
if (result == WBWIIteratorImpl::kFound) {
|
|
|
|
*pinnable_val->GetSelf() = std::move(batch_value);
|
|
|
|
pinnable_val->PinSelf();
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
if (result == WBWIIteratorImpl::kDeleted) {
|
|
|
|
*s = Status::NotFound();
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
if (result == WBWIIteratorImpl::kError) {
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
assert(result == WBWIIteratorImpl::kMergeInProgress ||
|
|
|
|
result == WBWIIteratorImpl::kNotFound);
|
|
|
|
key_context.emplace_back(column_family, keys[i], &values[i],
|
|
|
|
/*timestamp*/ nullptr, &statuses[i]);
|
|
|
|
merges.emplace_back(result, std::move(merge_context));
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for (KeyContext& key : key_context) {
|
|
|
|
sorted_keys.emplace_back(&key);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Did not find key in batch OR could not resolve Merges. Try DB.
|
|
|
|
static_cast_with_check<DBImpl>(db->GetRootDB())
|
|
|
|
->PrepareMultiGetKeys(key_context.size(), sorted_input, &sorted_keys);
|
|
|
|
static_cast_with_check<DBImpl>(db->GetRootDB())
|
|
|
|
->MultiGetWithCallback(read_options, column_family, callback,
|
|
|
|
&sorted_keys);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for (auto iter = key_context.begin(); iter != key_context.end(); ++iter) {
|
|
|
|
KeyContext& key = *iter;
|
|
|
|
if (key.s->ok() || key.s->IsNotFound()) { // DB Get Succeeded
|
|
|
|
size_t index = iter - key_context.begin();
|
Add Merge Operator support to WriteBatchWithIndex (#8135)
Summary:
The WBWI has two differing modes of operation dependent on the value
of the constructor parameter `overwrite_key`.
Currently, regardless of the parameter, neither mode performs as
expected when using Merge. This PR remedies this by correctly invoking
the appropriate Merge Operator before returning results from the WBWI.
Examples of issues that exist which are solved by this PR:
## Example 1 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v2`, that is to say that the Merge behaves like a Put.
## Example 2 with o`verwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
Get('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 3 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 4 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, with a database containing `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Merge('k1', 'v1')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
## Example 5 with `overwrite_key=false`
Currently, from an empty database, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `v1,v2`
## Example 6 with `overwrite_key=true`
Currently, from an empty database, `('k1' -> 'v1')`, the following sequence:
```
Put('k1', 'v1')
Merge('k1', 'v2')
GetFromBatchAndDB('k1')
```
Incorrectly yields `ERROR: kMergeInProgress`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8135
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D27657938
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: 0fbda6bbc66bedeba96a84786d90141d776297df
4 years ago
|
|
|
std::pair<WBWIIteratorImpl::Result, MergeContext>& merge_result =
|
|
|
|
merges[index];
|
|
|
|
if (merge_result.first == WBWIIteratorImpl::kMergeInProgress) {
|
|
|
|
std::string merged_value;
|
|
|
|
// Merge result from DB with merges in Batch
|
|
|
|
if (key.s->ok()) {
|
|
|
|
*key.s = wbwii.MergeKey(*key.key, iter->value, merge_result.second,
|
|
|
|
&merged_value);
|
|
|
|
} else { // Key not present in db (s.IsNotFound())
|
|
|
|
*key.s = wbwii.MergeKey(*key.key, nullptr, merge_result.second,
|
|
|
|
&merged_value);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (key.s->ok()) {
|
|
|
|
key.value->Reset();
|
|
|
|
*key.value->GetSelf() = std::move(merged_value);
|
|
|
|
key.value->PinSelf();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void WriteBatchWithIndex::SetSavePoint() { rep->write_batch.SetSavePoint(); }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::RollbackToSavePoint() {
|
|
|
|
Status s = rep->write_batch.RollbackToSavePoint();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (s.ok()) {
|
|
|
|
rep->sub_batch_cnt = 1;
|
|
|
|
rep->last_sub_batch_offset = 0;
|
|
|
|
s = rep->ReBuildIndex();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return s;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status WriteBatchWithIndex::PopSavePoint() {
|
|
|
|
return rep->write_batch.PopSavePoint();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void WriteBatchWithIndex::SetMaxBytes(size_t max_bytes) {
|
|
|
|
rep->write_batch.SetMaxBytes(max_bytes);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
size_t WriteBatchWithIndex::GetDataSize() const {
|
|
|
|
return rep->write_batch.GetDataSize();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const Comparator* WriteBatchWithIndexInternal::GetUserComparator(
|
|
|
|
const WriteBatchWithIndex& wbwi, uint32_t cf_id) {
|
|
|
|
const WriteBatchEntryComparator& ucmps = wbwi.rep->comparator;
|
|
|
|
return ucmps.GetComparator(cf_id);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} // namespace ROCKSDB_NAMESPACE
|
|
|
|
#endif // !ROCKSDB_LITE
|