You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
rocksdb/db/table_properties_collector_...

314 lines
9.8 KiB

// Copyright (c) 2013, Facebook, Inc. All rights reserved.
// This source code is licensed under the BSD-style license found in the
// LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree. An additional grant
// of patent rights can be found in the PATENTS file in the same directory.
#include <map>
#include <memory>
#include <string>
#include "db/db_impl.h"
#include "db/dbformat.h"
#include "db/table_properties_collector.h"
#include "rocksdb/table.h"
#include "table/block_based_table_factory.h"
#include "table/meta_blocks.h"
#include "table/plain_table_factory.h"
#include "table/table_builder.h"
#include "util/coding.h"
#include "util/testharness.h"
#include "util/testutil.h"
namespace rocksdb {
class TablePropertiesTest {
};
// TODO(kailiu) the following classes should be moved to some more general
// places, so that other tests can also make use of them.
// `FakeWritableFile` and `FakeRandomeAccessFile` bypass the real file system
// and therefore enable us to quickly setup the tests.
class FakeWritableFile : public WritableFile {
public:
~FakeWritableFile() { }
const std::string& contents() const { return contents_; }
virtual Status Close() { return Status::OK(); }
virtual Status Flush() { return Status::OK(); }
virtual Status Sync() { return Status::OK(); }
virtual Status Append(const Slice& data) {
contents_.append(data.data(), data.size());
return Status::OK();
}
private:
std::string contents_;
};
class FakeRandomeAccessFile : public RandomAccessFile {
public:
explicit FakeRandomeAccessFile(const Slice& contents)
: contents_(contents.data(), contents.size()) {
}
virtual ~FakeRandomeAccessFile() { }
uint64_t Size() const { return contents_.size(); }
virtual Status Read(uint64_t offset, size_t n, Slice* result,
char* scratch) const {
if (offset > contents_.size()) {
return Status::InvalidArgument("invalid Read offset");
}
if (offset + n > contents_.size()) {
n = contents_.size() - offset;
}
memcpy(scratch, &contents_[offset], n);
*result = Slice(scratch, n);
return Status::OK();
}
private:
std::string contents_;
};
class DumbLogger : public Logger {
public:
virtual void Logv(const char* format, va_list ap) { }
virtual size_t GetLogFileSize() const { return 0; }
};
// Utilities test functions
namespace {
void MakeBuilder(const Options& options,
const InternalKeyComparator& internal_comparator,
std::unique_ptr<FakeWritableFile>* writable,
std::unique_ptr<TableBuilder>* builder) {
writable->reset(new FakeWritableFile);
builder->reset(options.table_factory->NewTableBuilder(
options, internal_comparator, writable->get(), options.compression));
}
} // namespace
// Collects keys that starts with "A" in a table.
class RegularKeysStartWithA: public TablePropertiesCollector {
public:
const char* Name() const { return "RegularKeysStartWithA"; }
Status Finish(UserCollectedProperties* properties) {
std::string encoded;
PutVarint32(&encoded, count_);
*properties = UserCollectedProperties {
{ "TablePropertiesTest", "Rocksdb" },
{ "Count", encoded }
};
return Status::OK();
}
Status Add(const Slice& user_key, const Slice& value) {
// simply asssume all user keys are not empty.
if (user_key.data()[0] == 'A') {
++count_;
}
return Status::OK();
}
virtual UserCollectedProperties GetReadableProperties() const {
return UserCollectedProperties{};
}
private:
uint32_t count_ = 0;
};
TablePropertiesCollectorFactory Summary: This diff addresses task #4296714 and rethinks how users provide us with TablePropertiesCollectors as part of Options. Here's description of task #4296714: I'm debugging #4295529 and noticed that our count of user properties kDeletedKeys is wrong. We're sharing one single InternalKeyPropertiesCollector with all Table Builders. In LOG Files, we're outputting number of kDeletedKeys as connected with a single table, while it's actually the total count of deleted keys since creation of the DB. For example, this table has 3155 entries and 1391828 deleted keys. The problem with current approach that we call methods on a single TablePropertiesCollector for all the tables we create. Even worse, we could do it from multiple threads at the same time and TablePropertiesCollector has no way of knowing which table we're calling it for. Good part: Looks like nobody inside Facebook is using Options::table_properties_collectors. This means we should be able to painfully change the API. In this change, I introduce TablePropertiesCollectorFactory. For every table we create, we call `CreateTablePropertiesCollector`, which creates a TablePropertiesCollector for a single table. We then use it sequentially from a single thread, which means it doesn't have to be thread-safe. Test Plan: Added a test in table_properties_collector_test that fails on master (build two tables, assert that kDeletedKeys count is correct for the second one). Also, all other tests Reviewers: sdong, dhruba, haobo, kailiu Reviewed By: kailiu CC: leveldb Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D18579
10 years ago
class RegularKeysStartWithAFactory : public TablePropertiesCollectorFactory {
public:
virtual TablePropertiesCollector* CreateTablePropertiesCollector() {
return new RegularKeysStartWithA();
}
const char* Name() const { return "RegularKeysStartWithA"; }
};
extern uint64_t kBlockBasedTableMagicNumber;
extern uint64_t kPlainTableMagicNumber;
namespace {
void TestCustomizedTablePropertiesCollector(
uint64_t magic_number, bool encode_as_internal, const Options& options,
const InternalKeyComparator& internal_comparator) {
// make sure the entries will be inserted with order.
std::map<std::string, std::string> kvs = {
{"About ", "val5"}, // starts with 'A'
{"Abstract", "val2"}, // starts with 'A'
{"Around ", "val7"}, // starts with 'A'
{"Beyond ", "val3"},
{"Builder ", "val1"},
{"Cancel ", "val4"},
{"Find ", "val6"},
};
// -- Step 1: build table
std::unique_ptr<TableBuilder> builder;
std::unique_ptr<FakeWritableFile> writable;
MakeBuilder(options, internal_comparator, &writable, &builder);
for (const auto& kv : kvs) {
if (encode_as_internal) {
InternalKey ikey(kv.first, 0, ValueType::kTypeValue);
builder->Add(ikey.Encode(), kv.second);
} else {
builder->Add(kv.first, kv.second);
}
}
ASSERT_OK(builder->Finish());
// -- Step 2: Read properties
FakeRandomeAccessFile readable(writable->contents());
TableProperties* props;
Status s = ReadTableProperties(
&readable,
writable->contents().size(),
magic_number,
Env::Default(),
nullptr,
&props
);
std::unique_ptr<TableProperties> props_guard(props);
ASSERT_OK(s);
auto user_collected = props->user_collected_properties;
ASSERT_EQ("Rocksdb", user_collected.at("TablePropertiesTest"));
uint32_t starts_with_A = 0;
Slice key(user_collected.at("Count"));
ASSERT_TRUE(GetVarint32(&key, &starts_with_A));
ASSERT_EQ(3u, starts_with_A);
}
} // namespace
TEST(TablePropertiesTest, CustomizedTablePropertiesCollector) {
// Test properties collectors with internal keys or regular keys
// for block based table
for (bool encode_as_internal : { true, false }) {
Options options;
TablePropertiesCollectorFactory Summary: This diff addresses task #4296714 and rethinks how users provide us with TablePropertiesCollectors as part of Options. Here's description of task #4296714: I'm debugging #4295529 and noticed that our count of user properties kDeletedKeys is wrong. We're sharing one single InternalKeyPropertiesCollector with all Table Builders. In LOG Files, we're outputting number of kDeletedKeys as connected with a single table, while it's actually the total count of deleted keys since creation of the DB. For example, this table has 3155 entries and 1391828 deleted keys. The problem with current approach that we call methods on a single TablePropertiesCollector for all the tables we create. Even worse, we could do it from multiple threads at the same time and TablePropertiesCollector has no way of knowing which table we're calling it for. Good part: Looks like nobody inside Facebook is using Options::table_properties_collectors. This means we should be able to painfully change the API. In this change, I introduce TablePropertiesCollectorFactory. For every table we create, we call `CreateTablePropertiesCollector`, which creates a TablePropertiesCollector for a single table. We then use it sequentially from a single thread, which means it doesn't have to be thread-safe. Test Plan: Added a test in table_properties_collector_test that fails on master (build two tables, assert that kDeletedKeys count is correct for the second one). Also, all other tests Reviewers: sdong, dhruba, haobo, kailiu Reviewed By: kailiu CC: leveldb Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D18579
10 years ago
std::shared_ptr<TablePropertiesCollectorFactory> collector_factory(
new RegularKeysStartWithAFactory());
if (encode_as_internal) {
TablePropertiesCollectorFactory Summary: This diff addresses task #4296714 and rethinks how users provide us with TablePropertiesCollectors as part of Options. Here's description of task #4296714: I'm debugging #4295529 and noticed that our count of user properties kDeletedKeys is wrong. We're sharing one single InternalKeyPropertiesCollector with all Table Builders. In LOG Files, we're outputting number of kDeletedKeys as connected with a single table, while it's actually the total count of deleted keys since creation of the DB. For example, this table has 3155 entries and 1391828 deleted keys. The problem with current approach that we call methods on a single TablePropertiesCollector for all the tables we create. Even worse, we could do it from multiple threads at the same time and TablePropertiesCollector has no way of knowing which table we're calling it for. Good part: Looks like nobody inside Facebook is using Options::table_properties_collectors. This means we should be able to painfully change the API. In this change, I introduce TablePropertiesCollectorFactory. For every table we create, we call `CreateTablePropertiesCollector`, which creates a TablePropertiesCollector for a single table. We then use it sequentially from a single thread, which means it doesn't have to be thread-safe. Test Plan: Added a test in table_properties_collector_test that fails on master (build two tables, assert that kDeletedKeys count is correct for the second one). Also, all other tests Reviewers: sdong, dhruba, haobo, kailiu Reviewed By: kailiu CC: leveldb Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D18579
10 years ago
options.table_properties_collector_factories.emplace_back(
new UserKeyTablePropertiesCollectorFactory(collector_factory));
} else {
TablePropertiesCollectorFactory Summary: This diff addresses task #4296714 and rethinks how users provide us with TablePropertiesCollectors as part of Options. Here's description of task #4296714: I'm debugging #4295529 and noticed that our count of user properties kDeletedKeys is wrong. We're sharing one single InternalKeyPropertiesCollector with all Table Builders. In LOG Files, we're outputting number of kDeletedKeys as connected with a single table, while it's actually the total count of deleted keys since creation of the DB. For example, this table has 3155 entries and 1391828 deleted keys. The problem with current approach that we call methods on a single TablePropertiesCollector for all the tables we create. Even worse, we could do it from multiple threads at the same time and TablePropertiesCollector has no way of knowing which table we're calling it for. Good part: Looks like nobody inside Facebook is using Options::table_properties_collectors. This means we should be able to painfully change the API. In this change, I introduce TablePropertiesCollectorFactory. For every table we create, we call `CreateTablePropertiesCollector`, which creates a TablePropertiesCollector for a single table. We then use it sequentially from a single thread, which means it doesn't have to be thread-safe. Test Plan: Added a test in table_properties_collector_test that fails on master (build two tables, assert that kDeletedKeys count is correct for the second one). Also, all other tests Reviewers: sdong, dhruba, haobo, kailiu Reviewed By: kailiu CC: leveldb Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D18579
10 years ago
options.table_properties_collector_factories.resize(1);
options.table_properties_collector_factories[0] = collector_factory;
}
test::PlainInternalKeyComparator ikc(options.comparator);
TestCustomizedTablePropertiesCollector(kBlockBasedTableMagicNumber,
encode_as_internal, options, ikc);
}
// test plain table
Options options;
TablePropertiesCollectorFactory Summary: This diff addresses task #4296714 and rethinks how users provide us with TablePropertiesCollectors as part of Options. Here's description of task #4296714: I'm debugging #4295529 and noticed that our count of user properties kDeletedKeys is wrong. We're sharing one single InternalKeyPropertiesCollector with all Table Builders. In LOG Files, we're outputting number of kDeletedKeys as connected with a single table, while it's actually the total count of deleted keys since creation of the DB. For example, this table has 3155 entries and 1391828 deleted keys. The problem with current approach that we call methods on a single TablePropertiesCollector for all the tables we create. Even worse, we could do it from multiple threads at the same time and TablePropertiesCollector has no way of knowing which table we're calling it for. Good part: Looks like nobody inside Facebook is using Options::table_properties_collectors. This means we should be able to painfully change the API. In this change, I introduce TablePropertiesCollectorFactory. For every table we create, we call `CreateTablePropertiesCollector`, which creates a TablePropertiesCollector for a single table. We then use it sequentially from a single thread, which means it doesn't have to be thread-safe. Test Plan: Added a test in table_properties_collector_test that fails on master (build two tables, assert that kDeletedKeys count is correct for the second one). Also, all other tests Reviewers: sdong, dhruba, haobo, kailiu Reviewed By: kailiu CC: leveldb Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D18579
10 years ago
options.table_properties_collector_factories.emplace_back(
new RegularKeysStartWithAFactory());
options.table_factory = std::make_shared<PlainTableFactory>(8, 8, 0);
test::PlainInternalKeyComparator ikc(options.comparator);
TestCustomizedTablePropertiesCollector(kPlainTableMagicNumber, true, options,
ikc);
}
namespace {
void TestInternalKeyPropertiesCollector(
uint64_t magic_number,
bool sanitized,
std::shared_ptr<TableFactory> table_factory) {
InternalKey keys[] = {
InternalKey("A ", 0, ValueType::kTypeValue),
InternalKey("B ", 0, ValueType::kTypeValue),
InternalKey("C ", 0, ValueType::kTypeValue),
InternalKey("W ", 0, ValueType::kTypeDeletion),
InternalKey("X ", 0, ValueType::kTypeDeletion),
InternalKey("Y ", 0, ValueType::kTypeDeletion),
InternalKey("Z ", 0, ValueType::kTypeDeletion),
};
std::unique_ptr<TableBuilder> builder;
std::unique_ptr<FakeWritableFile> writable;
Options options;
test::PlainInternalKeyComparator pikc(options.comparator);
options.table_factory = table_factory;
if (sanitized) {
TablePropertiesCollectorFactory Summary: This diff addresses task #4296714 and rethinks how users provide us with TablePropertiesCollectors as part of Options. Here's description of task #4296714: I'm debugging #4295529 and noticed that our count of user properties kDeletedKeys is wrong. We're sharing one single InternalKeyPropertiesCollector with all Table Builders. In LOG Files, we're outputting number of kDeletedKeys as connected with a single table, while it's actually the total count of deleted keys since creation of the DB. For example, this table has 3155 entries and 1391828 deleted keys. The problem with current approach that we call methods on a single TablePropertiesCollector for all the tables we create. Even worse, we could do it from multiple threads at the same time and TablePropertiesCollector has no way of knowing which table we're calling it for. Good part: Looks like nobody inside Facebook is using Options::table_properties_collectors. This means we should be able to painfully change the API. In this change, I introduce TablePropertiesCollectorFactory. For every table we create, we call `CreateTablePropertiesCollector`, which creates a TablePropertiesCollector for a single table. We then use it sequentially from a single thread, which means it doesn't have to be thread-safe. Test Plan: Added a test in table_properties_collector_test that fails on master (build two tables, assert that kDeletedKeys count is correct for the second one). Also, all other tests Reviewers: sdong, dhruba, haobo, kailiu Reviewed By: kailiu CC: leveldb Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D18579
10 years ago
options.table_properties_collector_factories.emplace_back(
new RegularKeysStartWithAFactory());
// with sanitization, even regular properties collector will be able to
// handle internal keys.
auto comparator = options.comparator;
// HACK: Set options.info_log to avoid writing log in
// SanitizeOptions().
options.info_log = std::make_shared<DumbLogger>();
options = SanitizeOptions("db", // just a place holder
&pikc, nullptr, // don't care filter policy
options);
options.comparator = comparator;
} else {
TablePropertiesCollectorFactory Summary: This diff addresses task #4296714 and rethinks how users provide us with TablePropertiesCollectors as part of Options. Here's description of task #4296714: I'm debugging #4295529 and noticed that our count of user properties kDeletedKeys is wrong. We're sharing one single InternalKeyPropertiesCollector with all Table Builders. In LOG Files, we're outputting number of kDeletedKeys as connected with a single table, while it's actually the total count of deleted keys since creation of the DB. For example, this table has 3155 entries and 1391828 deleted keys. The problem with current approach that we call methods on a single TablePropertiesCollector for all the tables we create. Even worse, we could do it from multiple threads at the same time and TablePropertiesCollector has no way of knowing which table we're calling it for. Good part: Looks like nobody inside Facebook is using Options::table_properties_collectors. This means we should be able to painfully change the API. In this change, I introduce TablePropertiesCollectorFactory. For every table we create, we call `CreateTablePropertiesCollector`, which creates a TablePropertiesCollector for a single table. We then use it sequentially from a single thread, which means it doesn't have to be thread-safe. Test Plan: Added a test in table_properties_collector_test that fails on master (build two tables, assert that kDeletedKeys count is correct for the second one). Also, all other tests Reviewers: sdong, dhruba, haobo, kailiu Reviewed By: kailiu CC: leveldb Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D18579
10 years ago
options.table_properties_collector_factories = {
std::make_shared<InternalKeyPropertiesCollectorFactory>()};
}
TablePropertiesCollectorFactory Summary: This diff addresses task #4296714 and rethinks how users provide us with TablePropertiesCollectors as part of Options. Here's description of task #4296714: I'm debugging #4295529 and noticed that our count of user properties kDeletedKeys is wrong. We're sharing one single InternalKeyPropertiesCollector with all Table Builders. In LOG Files, we're outputting number of kDeletedKeys as connected with a single table, while it's actually the total count of deleted keys since creation of the DB. For example, this table has 3155 entries and 1391828 deleted keys. The problem with current approach that we call methods on a single TablePropertiesCollector for all the tables we create. Even worse, we could do it from multiple threads at the same time and TablePropertiesCollector has no way of knowing which table we're calling it for. Good part: Looks like nobody inside Facebook is using Options::table_properties_collectors. This means we should be able to painfully change the API. In this change, I introduce TablePropertiesCollectorFactory. For every table we create, we call `CreateTablePropertiesCollector`, which creates a TablePropertiesCollector for a single table. We then use it sequentially from a single thread, which means it doesn't have to be thread-safe. Test Plan: Added a test in table_properties_collector_test that fails on master (build two tables, assert that kDeletedKeys count is correct for the second one). Also, all other tests Reviewers: sdong, dhruba, haobo, kailiu Reviewed By: kailiu CC: leveldb Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D18579
10 years ago
for (int iter = 0; iter < 2; ++iter) {
MakeBuilder(options, pikc, &writable, &builder);
for (const auto& k : keys) {
builder->Add(k.Encode(), "val");
}
TablePropertiesCollectorFactory Summary: This diff addresses task #4296714 and rethinks how users provide us with TablePropertiesCollectors as part of Options. Here's description of task #4296714: I'm debugging #4295529 and noticed that our count of user properties kDeletedKeys is wrong. We're sharing one single InternalKeyPropertiesCollector with all Table Builders. In LOG Files, we're outputting number of kDeletedKeys as connected with a single table, while it's actually the total count of deleted keys since creation of the DB. For example, this table has 3155 entries and 1391828 deleted keys. The problem with current approach that we call methods on a single TablePropertiesCollector for all the tables we create. Even worse, we could do it from multiple threads at the same time and TablePropertiesCollector has no way of knowing which table we're calling it for. Good part: Looks like nobody inside Facebook is using Options::table_properties_collectors. This means we should be able to painfully change the API. In this change, I introduce TablePropertiesCollectorFactory. For every table we create, we call `CreateTablePropertiesCollector`, which creates a TablePropertiesCollector for a single table. We then use it sequentially from a single thread, which means it doesn't have to be thread-safe. Test Plan: Added a test in table_properties_collector_test that fails on master (build two tables, assert that kDeletedKeys count is correct for the second one). Also, all other tests Reviewers: sdong, dhruba, haobo, kailiu Reviewed By: kailiu CC: leveldb Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D18579
10 years ago
ASSERT_OK(builder->Finish());
FakeRandomeAccessFile readable(writable->contents());
TableProperties* props;
Status s =
ReadTableProperties(&readable, writable->contents().size(),
magic_number, Env::Default(), nullptr, &props);
ASSERT_OK(s);
std::unique_ptr<TableProperties> props_guard(props);
auto user_collected = props->user_collected_properties;
uint64_t deleted = GetDeletedKeys(user_collected);
ASSERT_EQ(4u, deleted);
if (sanitized) {
uint32_t starts_with_A = 0;
Slice key(user_collected.at("Count"));
ASSERT_TRUE(GetVarint32(&key, &starts_with_A));
ASSERT_EQ(1u, starts_with_A);
}
}
}
} // namespace
TEST(TablePropertiesTest, InternalKeyPropertiesCollector) {
TestInternalKeyPropertiesCollector(
kBlockBasedTableMagicNumber,
true /* sanitize */,
std::make_shared<BlockBasedTableFactory>()
);
TestInternalKeyPropertiesCollector(
kBlockBasedTableMagicNumber,
true /* not sanitize */,
std::make_shared<BlockBasedTableFactory>()
);
TestInternalKeyPropertiesCollector(
kPlainTableMagicNumber,
false /* not sanitize */,
std::make_shared<PlainTableFactory>(8, 8, 0)
);
}
} // namespace rocksdb
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
return rocksdb::test::RunAllTests();
}