Summary:
New experimental option BBTO::optimize_filters_for_memory builds
filters that maximize their use of "usable size" from malloc_usable_size,
which is also used to compute block cache charges.
Rather than always "rounding up," we track state in the
BloomFilterPolicy object to mix essentially "rounding down" and
"rounding up" so that the average FP rate of all generated filters is
the same as without the option. (YMMV as heavily accessed filters might
be unluckily lower accuracy.)
Thus, the option near-minimizes what the block cache considers as
"memory used" for a given target Bloom filter false positive rate and
Bloom filter implementation. There are no forward or backward
compatibility issues with this change, though it only works on the
format_version=5 Bloom filter.
With Jemalloc, we see about 10% reduction in memory footprint (and block
cache charge) for Bloom filters, but 1-2% increase in storage footprint,
due to encoding efficiency losses (FP rate is non-linear with bits/key).
Why not weighted random round up/down rather than state tracking? By
only requiring malloc_usable_size, we don't actually know what the next
larger and next smaller usable sizes for the allocator are. We pick a
requested size, accept and use whatever usable size it has, and use the
difference to inform our next choice. This allows us to narrow in on the
right balance without tracking/predicting usable sizes.
Why not weight history of generated filter false positive rates by
number of keys? This could lead to excess skew in small filters after
generating a large filter.
Results from filter_bench with jemalloc (irrelevant details omitted):
(normal keys/filter, but high variance)
$ ./filter_bench -quick -impl=2 -average_keys_per_filter=30000 -vary_key_count_ratio=0.9
Build avg ns/key: 29.6278
Number of filters: 5516
Total size (MB): 200.046
Reported total allocated memory (MB): 220.597
Reported internal fragmentation: 10.2732%
Bits/key stored: 10.0097
Average FP rate %: 0.965228
$ ./filter_bench -quick -impl=2 -average_keys_per_filter=30000 -vary_key_count_ratio=0.9 -optimize_filters_for_memory
Build avg ns/key: 30.5104
Number of filters: 5464
Total size (MB): 200.015
Reported total allocated memory (MB): 200.322
Reported internal fragmentation: 0.153709%
Bits/key stored: 10.1011
Average FP rate %: 0.966313
(very few keys / filter, optimization not as effective due to ~59 byte
internal fragmentation in blocked Bloom filter representation)
$ ./filter_bench -quick -impl=2 -average_keys_per_filter=1000 -vary_key_count_ratio=0.9
Build avg ns/key: 29.5649
Number of filters: 162950
Total size (MB): 200.001
Reported total allocated memory (MB): 224.624
Reported internal fragmentation: 12.3117%
Bits/key stored: 10.2951
Average FP rate %: 0.821534
$ ./filter_bench -quick -impl=2 -average_keys_per_filter=1000 -vary_key_count_ratio=0.9 -optimize_filters_for_memory
Build avg ns/key: 31.8057
Number of filters: 159849
Total size (MB): 200
Reported total allocated memory (MB): 208.846
Reported internal fragmentation: 4.42297%
Bits/key stored: 10.4948
Average FP rate %: 0.811006
(high keys/filter)
$ ./filter_bench -quick -impl=2 -average_keys_per_filter=1000000 -vary_key_count_ratio=0.9
Build avg ns/key: 29.7017
Number of filters: 164
Total size (MB): 200.352
Reported total allocated memory (MB): 221.5
Reported internal fragmentation: 10.5552%
Bits/key stored: 10.0003
Average FP rate %: 0.969358
$ ./filter_bench -quick -impl=2 -average_keys_per_filter=1000000 -vary_key_count_ratio=0.9 -optimize_filters_for_memory
Build avg ns/key: 30.7131
Number of filters: 160
Total size (MB): 200.928
Reported total allocated memory (MB): 200.938
Reported internal fragmentation: 0.00448054%
Bits/key stored: 10.1852
Average FP rate %: 0.963387
And from db_bench (block cache) with jemalloc:
$ ./db_bench -db=/dev/shm/dbbench.no_optimize -benchmarks=fillrandom -format_version=5 -value_size=90 -bloom_bits=10 -num=2000000 -threads=8 -compaction_style=2 -fifo_compaction_max_table_files_size_mb=10000 -fifo_compaction_allow_compaction=false
$ ./db_bench -db=/dev/shm/dbbench -benchmarks=fillrandom -format_version=5 -value_size=90 -bloom_bits=10 -num=2000000 -threads=8 -optimize_filters_for_memory -compaction_style=2 -fifo_compaction_max_table_files_size_mb=10000 -fifo_compaction_allow_compaction=false
$ (for FILE in /dev/shm/dbbench.no_optimize/*.sst; do ./sst_dump --file=$FILE --show_properties | grep 'filter block' ; done) | awk '{ t += $4; } END { print t; }'
17063835
$ (for FILE in /dev/shm/dbbench/*.sst; do ./sst_dump --file=$FILE --show_properties | grep 'filter block' ; done) | awk '{ t += $4; } END { print t; }'
17430747
$ #^ 2.1% additional filter storage
$ ./db_bench -db=/dev/shm/dbbench.no_optimize -use_existing_db -benchmarks=readrandom,stats -statistics -bloom_bits=10 -num=2000000 -compaction_style=2 -fifo_compaction_max_table_files_size_mb=10000 -fifo_compaction_allow_compaction=false -duration=10 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks -cache_size=1000000000
rocksdb.block.cache.index.add COUNT : 33
rocksdb.block.cache.index.bytes.insert COUNT : 8440400
rocksdb.block.cache.filter.add COUNT : 33
rocksdb.block.cache.filter.bytes.insert COUNT : 21087528
rocksdb.bloom.filter.useful COUNT : 4963889
rocksdb.bloom.filter.full.positive COUNT : 1214081
rocksdb.bloom.filter.full.true.positive COUNT : 1161999
$ #^ 1.04 % observed FP rate
$ ./db_bench -db=/dev/shm/dbbench -use_existing_db -benchmarks=readrandom,stats -statistics -bloom_bits=10 -num=2000000 -compaction_style=2 -fifo_compaction_max_table_files_size_mb=10000 -fifo_compaction_allow_compaction=false -optimize_filters_for_memory -duration=10 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks -cache_size=1000000000
rocksdb.block.cache.index.add COUNT : 33
rocksdb.block.cache.index.bytes.insert COUNT : 8448592
rocksdb.block.cache.filter.add COUNT : 33
rocksdb.block.cache.filter.bytes.insert COUNT : 18220328
rocksdb.bloom.filter.useful COUNT : 5360933
rocksdb.bloom.filter.full.positive COUNT : 1321315
rocksdb.bloom.filter.full.true.positive COUNT : 1262999
$ #^ 1.08 % observed FP rate, 13.6% less memory usage for filters
(Due to specific key density, this example tends to generate filters that are "worse than average" for internal fragmentation. "Better than average" cases can show little or no improvement.)
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/6427
Test Plan: unit test added, 'make check' with gcc, clang and valgrind
Reviewed By: siying
Differential Revision: D22124374
Pulled By: pdillinger
fbshipit-source-id: f3e3aa152f9043ddf4fae25799e76341d0d8714e
Peter Dillinger
5b2bbacb6f