Summary:
In the case where we can't find a filter block, there is not much benefit of doing the binary search and see whether the index key has the prefix. With the change, we blindly return true if we can't get the filter.
It also fixes missing row cases for reverse comparator with full bloom.
Test Plan: Add a test case that used to fail.
Reviewers: yhchiang, IslamAbdelRahman
Reviewed By: IslamAbdelRahman
Subscribers: kradhakrishnan, yiwu, hermanlee4, yoshinorim, leveldb, andrewkr, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D56697
Summary:
Full block checking should be a good enough indication of prefix existance. No need to further check data block.
This also fixes wrong results when using prefix bloom and reverse bitwise comparator.
Test Plan: Will add a unit test.
Reviewers: yhchiang, IslamAbdelRahman
Reviewed By: IslamAbdelRahman
Subscribers: hermanlee4, yoshinorim, yiwu, kradhakrishnan, leveldb, andrewkr, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D56625
Summary:
When a block based table file is opened, if prefetch_index_and_filter is true, it will prefetch the index and filter blocks, putting them into the block cache.
What this feature adds: when a L0 block based table file is opened, if pin_l0_filter_and_index_blocks_in_cache is true in the options (and prefetch_index_and_filter is true), then the filter and index blocks aren't released back to the block cache at the end of BlockBasedTableReader::Open(). Instead the table reader takes ownership of them, hence pinning them, ie. the LRU cache will never push them out. Meanwhile in the table reader, further accesses will not hit the block cache, thus avoiding lock contention.
Test Plan:
'export TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm/ && DISABLE_JEMALLOC=1 OPT=-g make all valgrind_check -j32' is OK.
I didn't run the Java tests, I don't have Java set up on my devserver.
Reviewers: sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: andrewkr, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D56133
Summary:
I ran into this assert when stress testing transactions. It's pretty easy to repro.
Changing VersionSet::last_sequence_ to start at 1 seems pretty straightforward. We would just need to change the 4 callers of SetLastSequence(), including recovery code. I'd make this change myself, but I do not have enough time to test changes to recovery code-paths this week. But checking in this test case (disabled) for future fixing.
Test Plan: n/a
Reviewers: yhchiang, kradhakrishnan, andrewkr, anthony, IslamAbdelRahman
Reviewed By: IslamAbdelRahman
Subscribers: andrewkr, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D55311
Summary:
In block based table reader, wow we put index reader to block cache, which can be retrieved after DB restart. However, index reader may reference internal comparator, which can be destroyed after DB restarts, causing problems.
Fix it by making cache key identical per table reader.
Test Plan: Add a new test which failed with out the commit but now pass.
Reviewers: IslamAbdelRahman
Reviewed By: IslamAbdelRahman
Subscribers: maro, yhchiang, kradhakrishnan, leveldb, andrewkr, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D55287
Summary: I realized I again is wrong about the naming convention. Let me change it to the correct one.
Test Plan: Run unit tests.
Reviewers: IslamAbdelRahman, kradhakrishnan, yhchiang, andrewkr
Reviewed By: andrewkr
Subscribers: leveldb, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D55041
Summary: We want to provide a way to detect whether an iterator is stale and needs to be recreated. Add a iterator property to return version number.
Test Plan: Add two unit tests for it.
Reviewers: IslamAbdelRahman, yhchiang, anthony, kradhakrishnan, andrewkr
Reviewed By: andrewkr
Subscribers: leveldb, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D54921
sdong