rocksdb/utilities/merge_operators/string_append/stringappend2.cc

105 lines
3.1 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

[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
/**
* @author Deon Nicholas (dnicholas@fb.com)
* Copyright 2013 Facebook
*/
#include "stringappend2.h"
#include <memory>
#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
2013-08-06 05:14:32 +02:00
#include "utilities/merge_operators.h"
namespace leveldb {
// 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
2013-08-06 05:14:32 +02:00
// 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::PartialMerge(const Slice& key,
const Slice& left_operand,
const Slice& right_operand,
std::string* new_value,
Logger* logger) const {
return false;
}
[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
// A version of PartialMerge that actually performs "partial merging".
// Use this to simulate the exact behaviour of the StringAppendOperator.
bool StringAppendTESTOperator::_AssocPartialMerge(const Slice& key,
const Slice& left_operand,
const Slice& right_operand,
std::string* new_value,
Logger* logger) const {
// Clear the *new_value for writing.
assert(new_value);
new_value->clear();
// Generic append
// Reserve correct size for *new_value, and apply concatenation.
new_value->reserve(left_operand.size() + 1 + right_operand.size());
new_value->assign(left_operand.data(), left_operand.size());
new_value->append(1,delim_);
new_value->append(right_operand.data(), right_operand.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
2013-08-06 05:14:32 +02:00
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
2013-08-06 05:14:32 +02:00
}
const char* StringAppendTESTOperator::Name() const {
return "StringAppendTESTOperator";
}
std::shared_ptr<MergeOperator>
MergeOperators::CreateStringAppendTESTOperator() {
return std::make_shared<StringAppendTESTOperator>(',');
}
[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
} // namespace leveldb