2019-04-18 19:51:19 +02:00
|
|
|
// Copyright (c) Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.
|
[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
2013-08-06 05:14:32 +02:00
|
|
|
/**
|
2013-10-05 07:32:05 +02:00
|
|
|
* A TEST MergeOperator for rocksdb that implements string append.
|
[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
2013-08-06 05:14:32 +02:00
|
|
|
* It is built using the MergeOperator interface rather than the simpler
|
|
|
|
* AssociativeMergeOperator interface. This is useful for testing/benchmarking.
|
|
|
|
* While the two operators are semantically the same, all production code
|
|
|
|
* should use the StringAppendOperator defined in stringappend.{h,cc}. The
|
|
|
|
* operator defined in the present file is primarily for testing.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* @author Deon Nicholas (dnicholas@fb.com)
|
|
|
|
* Copyright 2013 Facebook
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
2013-08-23 19:28:16 +02:00
|
|
|
#pragma once
|
2014-03-25 01:57:13 +01:00
|
|
|
#include <deque>
|
|
|
|
#include <string>
|
|
|
|
|
2013-08-23 17:38:13 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "rocksdb/merge_operator.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "rocksdb/slice.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
2013-08-06 05:14:32 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2013-10-04 06:49:15 +02:00
|
|
|
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
2013-08-06 05:14:32 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class StringAppendTESTOperator : public MergeOperator {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
2014-03-25 01:57:13 +01:00
|
|
|
// Constructor with delimiter
|
|
|
|
explicit StringAppendTESTOperator(char delim_char);
|
[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
2013-08-06 05:14:32 +02:00
|
|
|
|
Introduce FullMergeV2 (eliminate memcpy from merge operators)
Summary:
This diff update the code to pin the merge operator operands while the merge operation is done, so that we can eliminate the memcpy cost, to do that we need a new public API for FullMerge that replace the std::deque<std::string> with std::vector<Slice>
This diff is stacked on top of D56493 and D56511
In this diff we
- Update FullMergeV2 arguments to be encapsulated in MergeOperationInput and MergeOperationOutput which will make it easier to add new arguments in the future
- Replace std::deque<std::string> with std::vector<Slice> to pass operands
- Replace MergeContext std::deque with std::vector (based on a simple benchmark I ran https://gist.github.com/IslamAbdelRahman/78fc86c9ab9f52b1df791e58943fb187)
- Allow FullMergeV2 output to be an existing operand
```
[Everything in Memtable | 10K operands | 10 KB each | 1 operand per key]
DEBUG_LEVEL=0 make db_bench -j64 && ./db_bench --benchmarks="mergerandom,readseq,readseq,readseq,readseq,readseq" --merge_operator="max" --merge_keys=10000 --num=10000 --disable_auto_compactions --value_size=10240 --write_buffer_size=1000000000
[FullMergeV2]
readseq : 0.607 micros/op 1648235 ops/sec; 16121.2 MB/s
readseq : 0.478 micros/op 2091546 ops/sec; 20457.2 MB/s
readseq : 0.252 micros/op 3972081 ops/sec; 38850.5 MB/s
readseq : 0.237 micros/op 4218328 ops/sec; 41259.0 MB/s
readseq : 0.247 micros/op 4043927 ops/sec; 39553.2 MB/s
[master]
readseq : 3.935 micros/op 254140 ops/sec; 2485.7 MB/s
readseq : 3.722 micros/op 268657 ops/sec; 2627.7 MB/s
readseq : 3.149 micros/op 317605 ops/sec; 3106.5 MB/s
readseq : 3.125 micros/op 320024 ops/sec; 3130.1 MB/s
readseq : 4.075 micros/op 245374 ops/sec; 2400.0 MB/s
```
```
[Everything in Memtable | 10K operands | 10 KB each | 10 operand per key]
DEBUG_LEVEL=0 make db_bench -j64 && ./db_bench --benchmarks="mergerandom,readseq,readseq,readseq,readseq,readseq" --merge_operator="max" --merge_keys=1000 --num=10000 --disable_auto_compactions --value_size=10240 --write_buffer_size=1000000000
[FullMergeV2]
readseq : 3.472 micros/op 288018 ops/sec; 2817.1 MB/s
readseq : 2.304 micros/op 434027 ops/sec; 4245.2 MB/s
readseq : 1.163 micros/op 859845 ops/sec; 8410.0 MB/s
readseq : 1.192 micros/op 838926 ops/sec; 8205.4 MB/s
readseq : 1.250 micros/op 800000 ops/sec; 7824.7 MB/s
[master]
readseq : 24.025 micros/op 41623 ops/sec; 407.1 MB/s
readseq : 18.489 micros/op 54086 ops/sec; 529.0 MB/s
readseq : 18.693 micros/op 53495 ops/sec; 523.2 MB/s
readseq : 23.621 micros/op 42335 ops/sec; 414.1 MB/s
readseq : 18.775 micros/op 53262 ops/sec; 521.0 MB/s
```
```
[Everything in Block cache | 10K operands | 10 KB each | 1 operand per key]
[FullMergeV2]
$ DEBUG_LEVEL=0 make db_bench -j64 && ./db_bench --benchmarks="readseq,readseq,readseq,readseq,readseq" --merge_operator="max" --num=100000 --db="/dev/shm/merge-random-10K-10KB" --cache_size=1000000000 --use_existing_db --disable_auto_compactions
readseq : 14.741 micros/op 67837 ops/sec; 663.5 MB/s
readseq : 1.029 micros/op 971446 ops/sec; 9501.6 MB/s
readseq : 0.974 micros/op 1026229 ops/sec; 10037.4 MB/s
readseq : 0.965 micros/op 1036080 ops/sec; 10133.8 MB/s
readseq : 0.943 micros/op 1060657 ops/sec; 10374.2 MB/s
[master]
readseq : 16.735 micros/op 59755 ops/sec; 584.5 MB/s
readseq : 3.029 micros/op 330151 ops/sec; 3229.2 MB/s
readseq : 3.136 micros/op 318883 ops/sec; 3119.0 MB/s
readseq : 3.065 micros/op 326245 ops/sec; 3191.0 MB/s
readseq : 3.014 micros/op 331813 ops/sec; 3245.4 MB/s
```
```
[Everything in Block cache | 10K operands | 10 KB each | 10 operand per key]
DEBUG_LEVEL=0 make db_bench -j64 && ./db_bench --benchmarks="readseq,readseq,readseq,readseq,readseq" --merge_operator="max" --num=100000 --db="/dev/shm/merge-random-10-operands-10K-10KB" --cache_size=1000000000 --use_existing_db --disable_auto_compactions
[FullMergeV2]
readseq : 24.325 micros/op 41109 ops/sec; 402.1 MB/s
readseq : 1.470 micros/op 680272 ops/sec; 6653.7 MB/s
readseq : 1.231 micros/op 812347 ops/sec; 7945.5 MB/s
readseq : 1.091 micros/op 916590 ops/sec; 8965.1 MB/s
readseq : 1.109 micros/op 901713 ops/sec; 8819.6 MB/s
[master]
readseq : 27.257 micros/op 36687 ops/sec; 358.8 MB/s
readseq : 4.443 micros/op 225073 ops/sec; 2201.4 MB/s
readseq : 5.830 micros/op 171526 ops/sec; 1677.7 MB/s
readseq : 4.173 micros/op 239635 ops/sec; 2343.8 MB/s
readseq : 4.150 micros/op 240963 ops/sec; 2356.8 MB/s
```
Test Plan: COMPILE_WITH_ASAN=1 make check -j64
Reviewers: yhchiang, andrewkr, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: lovro, andrewkr, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D57075
2016-07-20 18:49:03 +02:00
|
|
|
virtual bool FullMergeV2(const MergeOperationInput& merge_in,
|
|
|
|
MergeOperationOutput* merge_out) const override;
|
[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
2013-08-06 05:14:32 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2014-03-25 01:57:13 +01:00
|
|
|
virtual bool PartialMergeMulti(const Slice& key,
|
|
|
|
const std::deque<Slice>& operand_list,
|
|
|
|
std::string* new_value, Logger* logger) const
|
|
|
|
override;
|
[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
2013-08-06 05:14:32 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
virtual const char* Name() const override;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
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
2013-08-16 02:13:07 +02:00
|
|
|
// A version of PartialMerge that actually performs "partial merging".
|
|
|
|
// Use this to simulate the exact behaviour of the StringAppendOperator.
|
2014-03-25 01:57:13 +01:00
|
|
|
bool _AssocPartialMergeMulti(const Slice& key,
|
|
|
|
const std::deque<Slice>& operand_list,
|
|
|
|
std::string* new_value, Logger* logger) const;
|
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
2013-08-16 02:13:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
[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
2013-08-06 05:14:32 +02:00
|
|
|
char delim_; // The delimiter is inserted between elements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
2013-10-04 06:49:15 +02:00
|
|
|
} // namespace rocksdb
|