[RocksDB] [MergeOperator] The new Merge Interface! Uses merge sequences.
Summary:
Here are the major changes to the Merge Interface. It has been expanded
to handle cases where the MergeOperator is not associative. It does so by stacking
up merge operations while scanning through the key history (i.e.: during Get() or
Compaction), until a valid Put/Delete/end-of-history is encountered; it then
applies all of the merge operations in the correct sequence starting with the
base/sentinel value.
I have also introduced an "AssociativeMerge" function which allows the user to
take advantage of associative merge operations (such as in the case of counters).
The implementation will always attempt to merge the operations/operands themselves
together when they are encountered, and will resort to the "stacking" method if
and only if the "associative-merge" fails.
This implementation is conjectured to allow MergeOperator to handle the general
case, while still providing the user with the ability to take advantage of certain
efficiencies in their own merge-operator / data-structure.
NOTE: This is a preliminary diff. This must still go through a lot of review,
revision, and testing. Feedback welcome!
Test Plan:
-This is a preliminary diff. I have only just begun testing/debugging it.
-I will be testing this with the existing MergeOperator use-cases and unit-tests
(counters, string-append, and redis-lists)
-I will be "desk-checking" and walking through the code with the help gdb.
-I will find a way of stress-testing the new interface / implementation using
db_bench, db_test, merge_test, and/or db_stress.
-I will ensure that my tests cover all cases: Get-Memtable,
Get-Immutable-Memtable, Get-from-Disk, Iterator-Range-Scan, Flush-Memtable-to-L0,
Compaction-L0-L1, Compaction-Ln-L(n+1), Put/Delete found, Put/Delete not-found,
end-of-history, end-of-file, etc.
-A lot of feedback from the reviewers.
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, emayanke
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11499
12 years ago
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* @author Deon Nicholas (dnicholas@fb.com)
|
|
|
|
* Copyright 2013 Facebook
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "stringappend2.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <memory>
|
|
|
|
#include <string>
|
[RocksDB] [MergeOperator] The new Merge Interface! Uses merge sequences.
Summary:
Here are the major changes to the Merge Interface. It has been expanded
to handle cases where the MergeOperator is not associative. It does so by stacking
up merge operations while scanning through the key history (i.e.: during Get() or
Compaction), until a valid Put/Delete/end-of-history is encountered; it then
applies all of the merge operations in the correct sequence starting with the
base/sentinel value.
I have also introduced an "AssociativeMerge" function which allows the user to
take advantage of associative merge operations (such as in the case of counters).
The implementation will always attempt to merge the operations/operands themselves
together when they are encountered, and will resort to the "stacking" method if
and only if the "associative-merge" fails.
This implementation is conjectured to allow MergeOperator to handle the general
case, while still providing the user with the ability to take advantage of certain
efficiencies in their own merge-operator / data-structure.
NOTE: This is a preliminary diff. This must still go through a lot of review,
revision, and testing. Feedback welcome!
Test Plan:
-This is a preliminary diff. I have only just begun testing/debugging it.
-I will be testing this with the existing MergeOperator use-cases and unit-tests
(counters, string-append, and redis-lists)
-I will be "desk-checking" and walking through the code with the help gdb.
-I will find a way of stress-testing the new interface / implementation using
db_bench, db_test, merge_test, and/or db_stress.
-I will ensure that my tests cover all cases: Get-Memtable,
Get-Immutable-Memtable, Get-from-Disk, Iterator-Range-Scan, Flush-Memtable-to-L0,
Compaction-L0-L1, Compaction-Ln-L(n+1), Put/Delete found, Put/Delete not-found,
end-of-history, end-of-file, etc.
-A lot of feedback from the reviewers.
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, emayanke
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11499
12 years ago
|
|
|
#include <assert.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "rocksdb/slice.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "rocksdb/merge_operator.h"
|
[RocksDB] [MergeOperator] The new Merge Interface! Uses merge sequences.
Summary:
Here are the major changes to the Merge Interface. It has been expanded
to handle cases where the MergeOperator is not associative. It does so by stacking
up merge operations while scanning through the key history (i.e.: during Get() or
Compaction), until a valid Put/Delete/end-of-history is encountered; it then
applies all of the merge operations in the correct sequence starting with the
base/sentinel value.
I have also introduced an "AssociativeMerge" function which allows the user to
take advantage of associative merge operations (such as in the case of counters).
The implementation will always attempt to merge the operations/operands themselves
together when they are encountered, and will resort to the "stacking" method if
and only if the "associative-merge" fails.
This implementation is conjectured to allow MergeOperator to handle the general
case, while still providing the user with the ability to take advantage of certain
efficiencies in their own merge-operator / data-structure.
NOTE: This is a preliminary diff. This must still go through a lot of review,
revision, and testing. Feedback welcome!
Test Plan:
-This is a preliminary diff. I have only just begun testing/debugging it.
-I will be testing this with the existing MergeOperator use-cases and unit-tests
(counters, string-append, and redis-lists)
-I will be "desk-checking" and walking through the code with the help gdb.
-I will find a way of stress-testing the new interface / implementation using
db_bench, db_test, merge_test, and/or db_stress.
-I will ensure that my tests cover all cases: Get-Memtable,
Get-Immutable-Memtable, Get-from-Disk, Iterator-Range-Scan, Flush-Memtable-to-L0,
Compaction-L0-L1, Compaction-Ln-L(n+1), Put/Delete found, Put/Delete not-found,
end-of-history, end-of-file, etc.
-A lot of feedback from the reviewers.
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, emayanke
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11499
12 years ago
|
|
|
#include "utilities/merge_operators.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namespace rocksdb {
|
[RocksDB] [MergeOperator] The new Merge Interface! Uses merge sequences.
Summary:
Here are the major changes to the Merge Interface. It has been expanded
to handle cases where the MergeOperator is not associative. It does so by stacking
up merge operations while scanning through the key history (i.e.: during Get() or
Compaction), until a valid Put/Delete/end-of-history is encountered; it then
applies all of the merge operations in the correct sequence starting with the
base/sentinel value.
I have also introduced an "AssociativeMerge" function which allows the user to
take advantage of associative merge operations (such as in the case of counters).
The implementation will always attempt to merge the operations/operands themselves
together when they are encountered, and will resort to the "stacking" method if
and only if the "associative-merge" fails.
This implementation is conjectured to allow MergeOperator to handle the general
case, while still providing the user with the ability to take advantage of certain
efficiencies in their own merge-operator / data-structure.
NOTE: This is a preliminary diff. This must still go through a lot of review,
revision, and testing. Feedback welcome!
Test Plan:
-This is a preliminary diff. I have only just begun testing/debugging it.
-I will be testing this with the existing MergeOperator use-cases and unit-tests
(counters, string-append, and redis-lists)
-I will be "desk-checking" and walking through the code with the help gdb.
-I will find a way of stress-testing the new interface / implementation using
db_bench, db_test, merge_test, and/or db_stress.
-I will ensure that my tests cover all cases: Get-Memtable,
Get-Immutable-Memtable, Get-from-Disk, Iterator-Range-Scan, Flush-Memtable-to-L0,
Compaction-L0-L1, Compaction-Ln-L(n+1), Put/Delete found, Put/Delete not-found,
end-of-history, end-of-file, etc.
-A lot of feedback from the reviewers.
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, emayanke
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11499
12 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Constructor: also specify the delimiter character.
|
|
|
|
StringAppendTESTOperator::StringAppendTESTOperator(char delim_char)
|
|
|
|
: delim_(delim_char) {
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Implementation for the merge operation (concatenates two strings)
|
|
|
|
bool StringAppendTESTOperator::FullMerge(
|
|
|
|
const Slice& key,
|
|
|
|
const Slice* existing_value,
|
|
|
|
const std::deque<std::string>& operands,
|
|
|
|
std::string* new_value,
|
|
|
|
Logger* logger) const {
|
[RocksDB] [MergeOperator] The new Merge Interface! Uses merge sequences.
Summary:
Here are the major changes to the Merge Interface. It has been expanded
to handle cases where the MergeOperator is not associative. It does so by stacking
up merge operations while scanning through the key history (i.e.: during Get() or
Compaction), until a valid Put/Delete/end-of-history is encountered; it then
applies all of the merge operations in the correct sequence starting with the
base/sentinel value.
I have also introduced an "AssociativeMerge" function which allows the user to
take advantage of associative merge operations (such as in the case of counters).
The implementation will always attempt to merge the operations/operands themselves
together when they are encountered, and will resort to the "stacking" method if
and only if the "associative-merge" fails.
This implementation is conjectured to allow MergeOperator to handle the general
case, while still providing the user with the ability to take advantage of certain
efficiencies in their own merge-operator / data-structure.
NOTE: This is a preliminary diff. This must still go through a lot of review,
revision, and testing. Feedback welcome!
Test Plan:
-This is a preliminary diff. I have only just begun testing/debugging it.
-I will be testing this with the existing MergeOperator use-cases and unit-tests
(counters, string-append, and redis-lists)
-I will be "desk-checking" and walking through the code with the help gdb.
-I will find a way of stress-testing the new interface / implementation using
db_bench, db_test, merge_test, and/or db_stress.
-I will ensure that my tests cover all cases: Get-Memtable,
Get-Immutable-Memtable, Get-from-Disk, Iterator-Range-Scan, Flush-Memtable-to-L0,
Compaction-L0-L1, Compaction-Ln-L(n+1), Put/Delete found, Put/Delete not-found,
end-of-history, end-of-file, etc.
-A lot of feedback from the reviewers.
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, emayanke
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11499
12 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Clear the *new_value for writing.
|
|
|
|
assert(new_value);
|
|
|
|
new_value->clear();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Compute the space needed for the final result.
|
|
|
|
int numBytes = 0;
|
|
|
|
for(auto it = operands.begin(); it != operands.end(); ++it) {
|
|
|
|
numBytes += it->size() + 1; // Plus 1 for the delimiter
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Only print the delimiter after the first entry has been printed
|
|
|
|
bool printDelim = false;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Prepend the *existing_value if one exists.
|
|
|
|
if (existing_value) {
|
|
|
|
new_value->reserve(numBytes + existing_value->size());
|
|
|
|
new_value->append(existing_value->data(), existing_value->size());
|
|
|
|
printDelim = true;
|
|
|
|
} else if (numBytes) {
|
|
|
|
new_value->reserve(numBytes-1); // Minus 1 since we have one less delimiter
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Concatenate the sequence of strings (and add a delimiter between each)
|
|
|
|
for(auto it = operands.begin(); it != operands.end(); ++it) {
|
|
|
|
if (printDelim) {
|
|
|
|
new_value->append(1,delim_);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
new_value->append(*it);
|
|
|
|
printDelim = true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool StringAppendTESTOperator::PartialMergeMulti(
|
|
|
|
const Slice& key, const std::deque<Slice>& operand_list,
|
|
|
|
std::string* new_value, Logger* logger) const {
|
[RocksDB] [MergeOperator] The new Merge Interface! Uses merge sequences.
Summary:
Here are the major changes to the Merge Interface. It has been expanded
to handle cases where the MergeOperator is not associative. It does so by stacking
up merge operations while scanning through the key history (i.e.: during Get() or
Compaction), until a valid Put/Delete/end-of-history is encountered; it then
applies all of the merge operations in the correct sequence starting with the
base/sentinel value.
I have also introduced an "AssociativeMerge" function which allows the user to
take advantage of associative merge operations (such as in the case of counters).
The implementation will always attempt to merge the operations/operands themselves
together when they are encountered, and will resort to the "stacking" method if
and only if the "associative-merge" fails.
This implementation is conjectured to allow MergeOperator to handle the general
case, while still providing the user with the ability to take advantage of certain
efficiencies in their own merge-operator / data-structure.
NOTE: This is a preliminary diff. This must still go through a lot of review,
revision, and testing. Feedback welcome!
Test Plan:
-This is a preliminary diff. I have only just begun testing/debugging it.
-I will be testing this with the existing MergeOperator use-cases and unit-tests
(counters, string-append, and redis-lists)
-I will be "desk-checking" and walking through the code with the help gdb.
-I will find a way of stress-testing the new interface / implementation using
db_bench, db_test, merge_test, and/or db_stress.
-I will ensure that my tests cover all cases: Get-Memtable,
Get-Immutable-Memtable, Get-from-Disk, Iterator-Range-Scan, Flush-Memtable-to-L0,
Compaction-L0-L1, Compaction-Ln-L(n+1), Put/Delete found, Put/Delete not-found,
end-of-history, end-of-file, etc.
-A lot of feedback from the reviewers.
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, emayanke
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11499
12 years ago
|
|
|
return false;
|
Benchmarking for Merge Operator
Summary:
Updated db_bench and utilities/merge_operators.h to allow for dynamic benchmarking
of merge operators in db_bench. Added a new test (--benchmarks=mergerandom), which performs
a bunch of random Merge() operations over random keys. Also added a "--merge_operator=" flag
so that the tester can easily benchmark different merge operators. Currently supports
the PutOperator and UInt64Add operator. Support for stringappend or list append may come later.
Test Plan:
1. make db_bench
2. Test the PutOperator (simulating Put) as follows:
./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readrandom,updaterandom,readrandom,mergerandom,readrandom --merge_operator=put
--threads=2
3. Test the UInt64AddOperator (simulating numeric addition) similarly:
./db_bench --value_size=8 --benchmarks=fillrandom,readrandom,updaterandom,readrandom,mergerandom,readrandom
--merge_operator=uint64add --threads=2
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, MarkCallaghan
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11535
12 years ago
|
|
|
}
|
[RocksDB] [MergeOperator] The new Merge Interface! Uses merge sequences.
Summary:
Here are the major changes to the Merge Interface. It has been expanded
to handle cases where the MergeOperator is not associative. It does so by stacking
up merge operations while scanning through the key history (i.e.: during Get() or
Compaction), until a valid Put/Delete/end-of-history is encountered; it then
applies all of the merge operations in the correct sequence starting with the
base/sentinel value.
I have also introduced an "AssociativeMerge" function which allows the user to
take advantage of associative merge operations (such as in the case of counters).
The implementation will always attempt to merge the operations/operands themselves
together when they are encountered, and will resort to the "stacking" method if
and only if the "associative-merge" fails.
This implementation is conjectured to allow MergeOperator to handle the general
case, while still providing the user with the ability to take advantage of certain
efficiencies in their own merge-operator / data-structure.
NOTE: This is a preliminary diff. This must still go through a lot of review,
revision, and testing. Feedback welcome!
Test Plan:
-This is a preliminary diff. I have only just begun testing/debugging it.
-I will be testing this with the existing MergeOperator use-cases and unit-tests
(counters, string-append, and redis-lists)
-I will be "desk-checking" and walking through the code with the help gdb.
-I will find a way of stress-testing the new interface / implementation using
db_bench, db_test, merge_test, and/or db_stress.
-I will ensure that my tests cover all cases: Get-Memtable,
Get-Immutable-Memtable, Get-from-Disk, Iterator-Range-Scan, Flush-Memtable-to-L0,
Compaction-L0-L1, Compaction-Ln-L(n+1), Put/Delete found, Put/Delete not-found,
end-of-history, end-of-file, etc.
-A lot of feedback from the reviewers.
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, emayanke
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11499
12 years ago
|
|
|
|
Benchmarking for Merge Operator
Summary:
Updated db_bench and utilities/merge_operators.h to allow for dynamic benchmarking
of merge operators in db_bench. Added a new test (--benchmarks=mergerandom), which performs
a bunch of random Merge() operations over random keys. Also added a "--merge_operator=" flag
so that the tester can easily benchmark different merge operators. Currently supports
the PutOperator and UInt64Add operator. Support for stringappend or list append may come later.
Test Plan:
1. make db_bench
2. Test the PutOperator (simulating Put) as follows:
./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readrandom,updaterandom,readrandom,mergerandom,readrandom --merge_operator=put
--threads=2
3. Test the UInt64AddOperator (simulating numeric addition) similarly:
./db_bench --value_size=8 --benchmarks=fillrandom,readrandom,updaterandom,readrandom,mergerandom,readrandom
--merge_operator=uint64add --threads=2
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, MarkCallaghan
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11535
12 years ago
|
|
|
// A version of PartialMerge that actually performs "partial merging".
|
|
|
|
// Use this to simulate the exact behaviour of the StringAppendOperator.
|
|
|
|
bool StringAppendTESTOperator::_AssocPartialMergeMulti(
|
|
|
|
const Slice& key, const std::deque<Slice>& operand_list,
|
|
|
|
std::string* new_value, Logger* logger) const {
|
|
|
|
// Clear the *new_value for writing
|
Benchmarking for Merge Operator
Summary:
Updated db_bench and utilities/merge_operators.h to allow for dynamic benchmarking
of merge operators in db_bench. Added a new test (--benchmarks=mergerandom), which performs
a bunch of random Merge() operations over random keys. Also added a "--merge_operator=" flag
so that the tester can easily benchmark different merge operators. Currently supports
the PutOperator and UInt64Add operator. Support for stringappend or list append may come later.
Test Plan:
1. make db_bench
2. Test the PutOperator (simulating Put) as follows:
./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readrandom,updaterandom,readrandom,mergerandom,readrandom --merge_operator=put
--threads=2
3. Test the UInt64AddOperator (simulating numeric addition) similarly:
./db_bench --value_size=8 --benchmarks=fillrandom,readrandom,updaterandom,readrandom,mergerandom,readrandom
--merge_operator=uint64add --threads=2
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, MarkCallaghan
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11535
12 years ago
|
|
|
assert(new_value);
|
|
|
|
new_value->clear();
|
|
|
|
assert(operand_list.size() >= 2);
|
Benchmarking for Merge Operator
Summary:
Updated db_bench and utilities/merge_operators.h to allow for dynamic benchmarking
of merge operators in db_bench. Added a new test (--benchmarks=mergerandom), which performs
a bunch of random Merge() operations over random keys. Also added a "--merge_operator=" flag
so that the tester can easily benchmark different merge operators. Currently supports
the PutOperator and UInt64Add operator. Support for stringappend or list append may come later.
Test Plan:
1. make db_bench
2. Test the PutOperator (simulating Put) as follows:
./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readrandom,updaterandom,readrandom,mergerandom,readrandom --merge_operator=put
--threads=2
3. Test the UInt64AddOperator (simulating numeric addition) similarly:
./db_bench --value_size=8 --benchmarks=fillrandom,readrandom,updaterandom,readrandom,mergerandom,readrandom
--merge_operator=uint64add --threads=2
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, MarkCallaghan
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11535
12 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Generic append
|
|
|
|
// Determine and reserve correct size for *new_value.
|
|
|
|
size_t size = 0;
|
|
|
|
for (const auto& operand : operand_list) {
|
|
|
|
size += operand.size();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
size += operand_list.size() - 1; // Delimiters
|
|
|
|
new_value->reserve(size);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Apply concatenation
|
|
|
|
new_value->assign(operand_list.front().data(), operand_list.front().size());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for (std::deque<Slice>::const_iterator it = operand_list.begin() + 1;
|
|
|
|
it != operand_list.end(); ++it) {
|
|
|
|
new_value->append(1, delim_);
|
|
|
|
new_value->append(it->data(), it->size());
|
|
|
|
}
|
[RocksDB] [MergeOperator] The new Merge Interface! Uses merge sequences.
Summary:
Here are the major changes to the Merge Interface. It has been expanded
to handle cases where the MergeOperator is not associative. It does so by stacking
up merge operations while scanning through the key history (i.e.: during Get() or
Compaction), until a valid Put/Delete/end-of-history is encountered; it then
applies all of the merge operations in the correct sequence starting with the
base/sentinel value.
I have also introduced an "AssociativeMerge" function which allows the user to
take advantage of associative merge operations (such as in the case of counters).
The implementation will always attempt to merge the operations/operands themselves
together when they are encountered, and will resort to the "stacking" method if
and only if the "associative-merge" fails.
This implementation is conjectured to allow MergeOperator to handle the general
case, while still providing the user with the ability to take advantage of certain
efficiencies in their own merge-operator / data-structure.
NOTE: This is a preliminary diff. This must still go through a lot of review,
revision, and testing. Feedback welcome!
Test Plan:
-This is a preliminary diff. I have only just begun testing/debugging it.
-I will be testing this with the existing MergeOperator use-cases and unit-tests
(counters, string-append, and redis-lists)
-I will be "desk-checking" and walking through the code with the help gdb.
-I will find a way of stress-testing the new interface / implementation using
db_bench, db_test, merge_test, and/or db_stress.
-I will ensure that my tests cover all cases: Get-Memtable,
Get-Immutable-Memtable, Get-from-Disk, Iterator-Range-Scan, Flush-Memtable-to-L0,
Compaction-L0-L1, Compaction-Ln-L(n+1), Put/Delete found, Put/Delete not-found,
end-of-history, end-of-file, etc.
-A lot of feedback from the reviewers.
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, emayanke
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11499
12 years ago
|
|
|
|
Benchmarking for Merge Operator
Summary:
Updated db_bench and utilities/merge_operators.h to allow for dynamic benchmarking
of merge operators in db_bench. Added a new test (--benchmarks=mergerandom), which performs
a bunch of random Merge() operations over random keys. Also added a "--merge_operator=" flag
so that the tester can easily benchmark different merge operators. Currently supports
the PutOperator and UInt64Add operator. Support for stringappend or list append may come later.
Test Plan:
1. make db_bench
2. Test the PutOperator (simulating Put) as follows:
./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readrandom,updaterandom,readrandom,mergerandom,readrandom --merge_operator=put
--threads=2
3. Test the UInt64AddOperator (simulating numeric addition) similarly:
./db_bench --value_size=8 --benchmarks=fillrandom,readrandom,updaterandom,readrandom,mergerandom,readrandom
--merge_operator=uint64add --threads=2
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, MarkCallaghan
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11535
12 years ago
|
|
|
return true;
|
[RocksDB] [MergeOperator] The new Merge Interface! Uses merge sequences.
Summary:
Here are the major changes to the Merge Interface. It has been expanded
to handle cases where the MergeOperator is not associative. It does so by stacking
up merge operations while scanning through the key history (i.e.: during Get() or
Compaction), until a valid Put/Delete/end-of-history is encountered; it then
applies all of the merge operations in the correct sequence starting with the
base/sentinel value.
I have also introduced an "AssociativeMerge" function which allows the user to
take advantage of associative merge operations (such as in the case of counters).
The implementation will always attempt to merge the operations/operands themselves
together when they are encountered, and will resort to the "stacking" method if
and only if the "associative-merge" fails.
This implementation is conjectured to allow MergeOperator to handle the general
case, while still providing the user with the ability to take advantage of certain
efficiencies in their own merge-operator / data-structure.
NOTE: This is a preliminary diff. This must still go through a lot of review,
revision, and testing. Feedback welcome!
Test Plan:
-This is a preliminary diff. I have only just begun testing/debugging it.
-I will be testing this with the existing MergeOperator use-cases and unit-tests
(counters, string-append, and redis-lists)
-I will be "desk-checking" and walking through the code with the help gdb.
-I will find a way of stress-testing the new interface / implementation using
db_bench, db_test, merge_test, and/or db_stress.
-I will ensure that my tests cover all cases: Get-Memtable,
Get-Immutable-Memtable, Get-from-Disk, Iterator-Range-Scan, Flush-Memtable-to-L0,
Compaction-L0-L1, Compaction-Ln-L(n+1), Put/Delete found, Put/Delete not-found,
end-of-history, end-of-file, etc.
-A lot of feedback from the reviewers.
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, emayanke
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11499
12 years ago
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const char* StringAppendTESTOperator::Name() const {
|
|
|
|
return "StringAppendTESTOperator";
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Benchmarking for Merge Operator
Summary:
Updated db_bench and utilities/merge_operators.h to allow for dynamic benchmarking
of merge operators in db_bench. Added a new test (--benchmarks=mergerandom), which performs
a bunch of random Merge() operations over random keys. Also added a "--merge_operator=" flag
so that the tester can easily benchmark different merge operators. Currently supports
the PutOperator and UInt64Add operator. Support for stringappend or list append may come later.
Test Plan:
1. make db_bench
2. Test the PutOperator (simulating Put) as follows:
./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readrandom,updaterandom,readrandom,mergerandom,readrandom --merge_operator=put
--threads=2
3. Test the UInt64AddOperator (simulating numeric addition) similarly:
./db_bench --value_size=8 --benchmarks=fillrandom,readrandom,updaterandom,readrandom,mergerandom,readrandom
--merge_operator=uint64add --threads=2
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, MarkCallaghan
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11535
12 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::shared_ptr<MergeOperator>
|
|
|
|
MergeOperators::CreateStringAppendTESTOperator() {
|
|
|
|
return std::make_shared<StringAppendTESTOperator>(',');
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} // namespace rocksdb
|
[RocksDB] [MergeOperator] The new Merge Interface! Uses merge sequences.
Summary:
Here are the major changes to the Merge Interface. It has been expanded
to handle cases where the MergeOperator is not associative. It does so by stacking
up merge operations while scanning through the key history (i.e.: during Get() or
Compaction), until a valid Put/Delete/end-of-history is encountered; it then
applies all of the merge operations in the correct sequence starting with the
base/sentinel value.
I have also introduced an "AssociativeMerge" function which allows the user to
take advantage of associative merge operations (such as in the case of counters).
The implementation will always attempt to merge the operations/operands themselves
together when they are encountered, and will resort to the "stacking" method if
and only if the "associative-merge" fails.
This implementation is conjectured to allow MergeOperator to handle the general
case, while still providing the user with the ability to take advantage of certain
efficiencies in their own merge-operator / data-structure.
NOTE: This is a preliminary diff. This must still go through a lot of review,
revision, and testing. Feedback welcome!
Test Plan:
-This is a preliminary diff. I have only just begun testing/debugging it.
-I will be testing this with the existing MergeOperator use-cases and unit-tests
(counters, string-append, and redis-lists)
-I will be "desk-checking" and walking through the code with the help gdb.
-I will find a way of stress-testing the new interface / implementation using
db_bench, db_test, merge_test, and/or db_stress.
-I will ensure that my tests cover all cases: Get-Memtable,
Get-Immutable-Memtable, Get-from-Disk, Iterator-Range-Scan, Flush-Memtable-to-L0,
Compaction-L0-L1, Compaction-Ln-L(n+1), Put/Delete found, Put/Delete not-found,
end-of-history, end-of-file, etc.
-A lot of feedback from the reviewers.
Reviewers: haobo, dhruba, zshao, emayanke
Reviewed By: haobo
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D11499
12 years ago
|
|
|
|