Commit Graph

8 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Siying Dong
8673a8c567 Change RocksDB License
Summary: Closes https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/2589

Differential Revision: D5431502

Pulled By: siying

fbshipit-source-id: 8ebf8c87883daa9daa54b2303d11ce01ab1f6f75
2017-07-26 11:31:01 -07:00
Siying Dong
d616ebea23 Add GPLv2 as an alternative license.
Summary: Closes https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/2226

Differential Revision: D4967547

Pulled By: siying

fbshipit-source-id: dd3b58ae1e7a106ab6bb6f37ab5c88575b125ab4
2017-04-27 18:06:12 -07:00
Manuel Ung
1f8b119ed6 Limit maximum memory used in the WriteBatch representation
Summary:
Extend TransactionOptions to include max_write_batch_size which determines the maximum size of the writebatch representation. If memory limit is exceeded, the operation will abort with subcode kMemoryLimit.
Closes https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/2124

Differential Revision: D4861842

Pulled By: lth

fbshipit-source-id: 46fd172ea67cc90bbba829bf0d70cfab2261c161
2017-04-10 15:42:26 -07:00
Andrew Kryczka
3771e37970 WriteBatch support for range deletion
Summary:
Add API to WriteBatch to store range deletions in its buffer
which are later added to memtable. In the WriteBatch buffer, a range
deletion is encoded as "<optype><CF ID (optional)><begin key><end key>".

With this diff, the range tombstones are stored inline with the data in
the memtable. It's useful for now because the test cases rely on the
data being accessible via memtable. My next step is to store range
tombstones in a separate area in the memtable.

Test Plan: unit tests

Reviewers: IslamAbdelRahman, sdong, wanning

Reviewed By: wanning

Subscribers: andrewkr, dhruba, leveldb

Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D61401
2016-08-16 08:16:04 -07:00
Baraa Hamodi
21e95811d1 Updated all copyright headers to the new format. 2016-02-09 15:12:00 -08:00
Andres Noetzli
014fd55adc Support for SingleDelete()
Summary:
This patch fixes #7460559. It introduces SingleDelete as a new database
operation. This operation can be used to delete keys that were never
overwritten (no put following another put of the same key). If an overwritten
key is single deleted the behavior is undefined. Single deletion of a
non-existent key has no effect but multiple consecutive single deletions are
not allowed (see limitations).

In contrast to the conventional Delete() operation, the deletion entry is
removed along with the value when the two are lined up in a compaction. Note:
The semantics are similar to @igor's prototype that allowed to have this
behavior on the granularity of a column family (
https://reviews.facebook.net/D42093 ). This new patch, however, is more
aggressive when it comes to removing tombstones: It removes the SingleDelete
together with the value whenever there is no snapshot between them while the
older patch only did this when the sequence number of the deletion was older
than the earliest snapshot.

Most of the complex additions are in the Compaction Iterator, all other changes
should be relatively straightforward. The patch also includes basic support for
single deletions in db_stress and db_bench.

Limitations:
- Not compatible with cuckoo hash tables
- Single deletions cannot be used in combination with merges and normal
  deletions on the same key (other keys are not affected by this)
- Consecutive single deletions are currently not allowed (and older version of
  this patch supported this so it could be resurrected if needed)

Test Plan: make all check

Reviewers: yhchiang, sdong, rven, anthony, yoshinorim, igor

Reviewed By: igor

Subscribers: maykov, dhruba, leveldb

Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D43179
2015-09-17 11:42:56 -07:00
Reed Allman
a0635ba3f6 WriteBatch.Merge w/ SliceParts support
also hooked up WriteBatchInternal
2015-05-29 04:30:03 -07:00
agiardullo
81345b90f9 Create an abstract interface for write batches
Summary: WriteBatch and WriteBatchWithIndex now both inherit from a common abstract base class.  This makes it easier to write code that is agnostic toward the implementation of the particular write batch.  In particular, I plan on utilizing this abstraction to allow transactions to support using either implementation of a write batch.

Test Plan: modified existing WriteBatchWithIndex tests to test new functions.  Running all tests.

Reviewers: igor, rven, yhchiang, sdong

Reviewed By: sdong

Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb

Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D34017
2015-03-17 19:23:08 -07:00