npm - rn-leveldb - Versions diffs - 3.11.0 - Mend

rn-leveldb 3.11.0

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.

Files changed (595) hide show

package/cpp/leveldb/doc/benchmark.html ADDED Viewed

@@ -0,0 +1,459 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html>
+<html>
+<head>
+<title>LevelDB Benchmarks</title>
+<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
+<style>
+body {
+  font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;
+  padding:20px;
+}
+h2 {
+  padding-top:30px;
+}
+table.bn {
+  width:800px;
+  border-collapse:collapse;
+  border:0;
+  padding:0;
+}
+table.bnbase {
+  width:650px;
+}
+table.bn td {
+  padding:2px 0;
+}
+table.bn td.c1 {
+  font-weight:bold;
+  width:150px;
+}
+table.bn td.c1 div.e {
+  float:right;
+  font-weight:normal;
+}
+table.bn td.c2 {
+  width:150px;
+  text-align:right;
+  padding:2px;
+}
+table.bn td.c3 {
+  width:350px;
+}
+table.bn td.c4 {
+  width:150px;
+  font-size:small;
+  padding-left:4px;
+}
+/* chart bars */
+div.bldb {
+  background-color:#0255df;
+}
+div.bkct {
+  background-color:#df5555;
+}
+div.bsql {
+  background-color:#aadf55;
+}
+.code {
+  font-family:monospace;
+  font-size:large;
+}
+.todo {
+  color: red;
+}
+</style>
+</head>
+<body>
+<h1>LevelDB Benchmarks</h1>
+<p>Google, July 2011</p>
+<hr>
+<p>In order to test LevelDB's performance, we benchmark it against other well-established database implementations. We compare LevelDB (revision 39) against <a href="http://www.sqlite.org/">SQLite3</a> (version 3.7.6.3) and <a href="http://fallabs.com/kyotocabinet/spex.html">Kyoto Cabinet's</a> (version 1.2.67) TreeDB (a B+Tree based key-value store). We would like to acknowledge Scott Hess and Mikio Hirabayashi for their suggestions and contributions to the SQLite3 and Kyoto Cabinet benchmarks, respectively.</p>
+<p>Benchmarks were all performed on a six-core Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5650 @ 2.67GHz, with 12288 KB of total L3 cache and 12 GB of DDR3 RAM at 1333 MHz. (Note that LevelDB uses at most two CPUs since the benchmarks are single threaded: one to run the benchmark, and one for background compactions.) We ran the benchmarks on two machines (with identical processors), one with an Ext3 file system and one with an Ext4 file system. The machine with the Ext3 file system has a SATA Hitachi HDS721050CLA362 hard drive. The machine with the Ext4 file system has a SATA Samsung HD502HJ hard drive. Both hard drives spin at 7200 RPM and have hard drive write-caching enabled (using `hdparm -W 1 [device]`). The numbers reported below are the median of three measurements.</p>
+<h4>Benchmark Source Code</h4>
+<p>We wrote benchmark tools for SQLite and Kyoto TreeDB based on LevelDB's <span class="code">db_bench</span>. The code for each of the benchmarks resides here:</p>
+<ul>
+	<li> <b>LevelDB:</b> <a href="https://github.com/google/leveldb/blob/master/benchmarks/db_bench.cc">benchmarks/db_bench.cc</a>.</li>
+	<li> <b>SQLite:</b> <a href="https://github.com/google/leveldb/blob/master/benchmarks/db_bench_sqlite3.cc">benchmarks/db_bench_sqlite3.cc</a>.</li>
+	<li> <b>Kyoto TreeDB:</b> <a href="https://github.com/google/leveldb/blob/master/benchmarks/db_bench_tree_db.cc">benchmarks/db_bench_tree_db.cc</a>.</li>
+</ul>
+<h4>Custom Build Specifications</h4>
+<ul>
+<li>LevelDB: LevelDB was compiled with the <a href="http://code.google.com/p/google-perftools">tcmalloc</a> library and the <a href="http://code.google.com/p/snappy/">Snappy</a> compression library (revision 33).  Assertions were disabled.</li>
+<li>TreeDB: TreeDB was compiled using the <a href="http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/lzo/">LZO</a> compression library (version 2.03). Furthermore, we enabled the TSMALL and TLINEAR options when opening the database in order to reduce the footprint of each record.</li>
+<li>SQLite: We tuned SQLite's performance, by setting its locking mode to exclusive.  We also enabled SQLite's <a href="http://www.sqlite.org/draft/wal.html">write-ahead logging</a>.</li>
+</ul>
+<h2>1. Baseline Performance</h2>
+<p>This section gives the baseline performance of all the
+databases.  Following sections show how performance changes as various
+parameters are varied.  For the baseline:</p>
+<ul>
+	<li> Each database is allowed 4 MB of cache memory.</li>
+        <li> Databases are opened in <em>asynchronous</em> write mode.
+             (LevelDB's sync option, TreeDB's OAUTOSYNC option, and
+             SQLite3's synchronous options are all turned off).  I.e.,
+             every write is pushed to the operating system, but the
+             benchmark does not wait for the write to reach the disk.</li>
+	<li> Keys are 16 bytes each.</li>
+        <li> Value are 100 bytes each (with enough redundancy so that
+             a simple compressor shrinks them to 50% of their original
+             size).</li>
+	<li> Sequential reads/writes traverse the key space in increasing order.</li>
+	<li> Random reads/writes traverse the key space in random order.</li>
+</ul>
+<h3>A. Sequential Reads</h3>
+<table class="bn bnbase">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">4,030,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">1,010,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:95px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">383,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:33px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+</table>
+<h3>B. Random Reads</h3>
+<table class="bn bnbase">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">129,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:298px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">151,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">134,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:310px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+</table>
+<h3>C. Sequential Writes</h3>
+<table class="bn bnbase">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">779,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">342,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:154px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">48,600 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:22px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+</table>
+<h3>D. Random Writes</h3>
+<table class="bn bnbase">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">164,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">88,500 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:188px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">9,860 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:21px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+</table>
+<p>LevelDB outperforms both SQLite3 and TreeDB in sequential and random write operations and sequential read operations. Kyoto Cabinet has the fastest random read operations.</p>
+<h2>2. Write Performance under Different Configurations</h2>
+<h3>A. Large Values </h3>
+<p>For this benchmark, we start with an empty database, and write 100,000 byte values (~50% compressible). To keep the benchmark running time reasonable, we stop after writing 1000 values.</p>
+<h4>Sequential Writes</h4>
+<table class="bn bnbase">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">1,100 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:234px">&nbsp;</div></td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">1,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:224px">&nbsp;</div></td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">1,600 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td></tr>
+</table>
+<h4>Random Writes</h4>
+<table class="bn bnbase">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">480 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:105px">&nbsp;</div></td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">1,100 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:240px">&nbsp;</div></td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">1,600 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td></tr>
+</table>
+<p>LevelDB doesn't perform as well with large values of 100,000 bytes each. This is because LevelDB writes keys and values at least twice: first time to the transaction log, and second time (during a compaction) to a sorted file.
+With larger values, LevelDB's per-operation efficiency is swamped by the
+cost of extra copies of large values.</p>
+<h3>B. Batch Writes</h3>
+<p>A batch write is a set of writes that are applied atomically to the underlying database. A single batch of N writes may be significantly faster than N individual writes. The following benchmark writes one thousand batches where each batch contains one thousand 100-byte values. TreeDB does not support batch writes and is omitted from this benchmark.</p>
+<h4>Sequential Writes</h4>
+<table class="bn">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">840,000 entries/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.08x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">124,000 entries/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:52px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(2.55x baseline)</td></tr>
+</table>
+<h4>Random Writes</h4>
+<table class="bn">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">221,000 entries/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.35x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">22,000 entries/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:34px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(2.23x baseline)</td></tr>
+</table>
+<p>Because of the way LevelDB persistent storage is organized, batches of
+random writes are not much slower (only a factor of 4x) than batches
+of sequential writes.</p>
+<h3>C. Synchronous Writes</h3>
+<p>In the following benchmark, we enable the synchronous writing modes
+of all of the databases.  Since this change significantly slows down the
+benchmark, we stop after 10,000 writes. For synchronous write tests, we've
+disabled hard drive write-caching (using `hdparm -W 0 [device]`).</p>
+<ul>
+    <li>For LevelDB, we set WriteOptions.sync = true.</li>
+    <li>In TreeDB, we enabled TreeDB's OAUTOSYNC option.</li>
+    <li>For SQLite3, we set "PRAGMA synchronous = FULL".</li>
+</ul>
+<h4>Sequential Writes</h4>
+<table class="bn">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">100 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(0.003x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">7 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:27px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(0.0004x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">88 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:315px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(0.002x baseline)</td></tr>
+</table>
+<h4>Random Writes</h4>
+<table class="bn">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">100 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(0.015x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">8 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:29px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(0.001x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">88 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:314px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(0.009x baseline)</td></tr>
+</table>
+<p>Also see the <code>ext4</code> performance numbers below
+since synchronous writes behave significantly differently
+on <code>ext3</code> and <code>ext4</code>.</p>
+<h3>D. Turning Compression Off</h3>
+<p>In the baseline measurements, LevelDB and TreeDB were using
+light-weight compression
+(<a href="http://code.google.com/p/snappy/">Snappy</a> for LevelDB,
+and <a href="http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/lzo/">LZO</a> for
+TreeDB). SQLite3, by default does not use compression.  The
+experiments below show what happens when compression is disabled in
+all of the databases (the SQLite3 numbers are just a copy of
+its baseline measurements):</p>
+<h4>Sequential Writes</h4>
+<table class="bn">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">594,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(0.76x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">485,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:239px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.42x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">48,600 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:29px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.00x baseline)</td></tr>
+</table>
+<h4>Random Writes</h4>
+<table class="bn">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">135,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:296px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(0.82x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">159,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.80x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">9,860 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:22px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.00x baseline)</td></tr>
+</table>
+<p>LevelDB's write performance is better with compression than without
+since compression decreases the amount of data that has to be written
+to disk.  Therefore LevelDB users can leave compression enabled in
+most scenarios without having worry about a tradeoff between space
+usage and performance.  TreeDB's performance on the other hand is
+better without compression than with compression.  Presumably this is
+because TreeDB's compression library (LZO) is more expensive than
+LevelDB's compression library (Snappy).<p>
+<h3>E. Using More Memory</h3>
+<p>We increased the overall cache size for each database to 128 MB. For LevelDB, we partitioned 128 MB into a 120 MB write buffer and 8 MB of cache (up from 2 MB of write buffer and 2 MB of cache). For SQLite3, we kept the page size at 1024 bytes, but increased the number of pages to 131,072 (up from 4096). For TreeDB, we also kept the page size at 1024 bytes, but increased the cache size to 128 MB (up from 4 MB).</p>
+<h4>Sequential Writes</h4>
+<table class="bn">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">812,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.04x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">321,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:138px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(0.94x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">48,500 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:21px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.00x baseline)</td></tr>
+</table>
+<h4>Random Writes</h4>
+<table class="bn">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">355,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(2.16x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">284,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:280px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(3.21x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">9,670 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:10px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(0.98x baseline)</td></tr>
+</table>
+<p>SQLite's performance does not change substantially when compared to
+the baseline, but the random write performance for both LevelDB and
+TreeDB increases significantly.  LevelDB's performance improves
+because a larger write buffer reduces the need to merge sorted files
+(since it creates a smaller number of larger sorted files).  TreeDB's
+performance goes up because the entire database is available in memory
+for fast in-place updates.</p>
+  <h2>3. Read Performance under Different Configurations</h2>
+<h3>A. Larger Caches</h3>
+<p>We increased the overall memory usage to 128 MB for each database.
+For LevelDB, we allocated 8 MB to LevelDB's write buffer and 120 MB
+to LevelDB's cache. The other databases don't differentiate between a
+write buffer and a cache, so we simply set their cache size to 128
+MB.</p>
+<h4>Sequential Reads</h4>
+<table class="bn">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">5,210,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.29x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">1,070,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:72px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.06x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">609,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:41px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.59x baseline)</td></tr>
+</table>
+<h4>Random Reads</h4>
+<table class="bn">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">190,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:144px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.47x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">463,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(3.07x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">186,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:141px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.39x baseline)</td></tr>
+</table>
+<p>As expected, the read performance of all of the databases increases
+when the caches are enlarged.  In particular, TreeDB seems to make
+very effective use of a cache that is large enough to hold the entire
+database.</p>
+<h3>B. No Compression Reads </h3>
+<p>For this benchmark, we populated a database with 1 million entries consisting of 16 byte keys and 100 byte values. We compiled LevelDB and Kyoto Cabinet without compression support, so results that are read out from the database are already uncompressed. We've listed the SQLite3 baseline read performance as a point of comparison.</p>
+<h4>Sequential Reads</h4>
+<table class="bn">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">4,880,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.21x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">1,230,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:88px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(3.60x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">383,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:27px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.00x baseline)</td></tr>
+</table>
+<h4>Random Reads</h4>
+<table class="bn">
+<tr><td class="c1">LevelDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">149,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bldb" style="width:300px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.16x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">Kyoto TreeDB</td>
+    <td class="c2">175,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bkct" style="width:350px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.16x baseline)</td></tr>
+<tr><td class="c1">SQLite3</td>
+    <td class="c2">134,000 ops/sec</td>
+    <td class="c3"><div class="bsql" style="width:268px">&nbsp;</div></td>
+    <td class="c4">(1.00x baseline)</td></tr>
+</table>
+<p>Performance of both LevelDB and TreeDB improves a small amount when
+compression is disabled.  Note however that under different workloads,
+performance may very well be better with compression if it allows more
+of the working set to fit in memory.</p>
+<h2>Note about Ext4 Filesystems</h2>
+<p>The preceding numbers are for an ext3 file system. Synchronous writes are much slower under <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4">ext4</a> (LevelDB drops to ~31 writes / second and TreeDB drops to ~5 writes / second; SQLite3's synchronous writes do not noticeably drop) due to ext4's different handling of <span class="code">fsync</span> / <span class="code">msync</span> calls. Even LevelDB's asynchronous write performance drops somewhat since it spreads its storage across multiple files and issues <span class="code">fsync</span> calls when switching to a new file.</p>
+<h2>Acknowledgements</h2>
+<p>Jeff Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat wrote LevelDB. Kevin Tseng wrote and compiled these benchmarks. Mikio Hirabayashi, Scott Hess, and Gabor Cselle provided help and advice.</p>
+</body>
+</html>

package/cpp/leveldb/doc/impl.md ADDED Viewed

@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
+## Files
+The implementation of leveldb is similar in spirit to the representation of a
+single [Bigtable tablet (section 5.3)](http://research.google.com/archive/bigtable.html).
+However the organization of the files that make up the representation is
+somewhat different and is explained below.
+Each database is represented by a set of files stored in a directory. There are
+several different types of files as documented below:
+### Log files
+A log file (*.log) stores a sequence of recent updates. Each update is appended
+to the current log file. When the log file reaches a pre-determined size
+(approximately 4MB by default), it is converted to a sorted table (see below)
+and a new log file is created for future updates.
+A copy of the current log file is kept in an in-memory structure (the
+`memtable`). This copy is consulted on every read so that read operations
+reflect all logged updates.
+## Sorted tables
+A sorted table (*.ldb) stores a sequence of entries sorted by key. Each entry is
+either a value for the key, or a deletion marker for the key. (Deletion markers
+are kept around to hide obsolete values present in older sorted tables).
+The set of sorted tables are organized into a sequence of levels. The sorted
+table generated from a log file is placed in a special **young** level (also
+called level-0). When the number of young files exceeds a certain threshold
+(currently four), all of the young files are merged together with all of the
+overlapping level-1 files to produce a sequence of new level-1 files (we create
+a new level-1 file for every 2MB of data.)
+Files in the young level may contain overlapping keys. However files in other
+levels have distinct non-overlapping key ranges. Consider level number L where
+L >= 1. When the combined size of files in level-L exceeds (10^L) MB (i.e., 10MB
+for level-1, 100MB for level-2, ...), one file in level-L, and all of the
+overlapping files in level-(L+1) are merged to form a set of new files for
+level-(L+1). These merges have the effect of gradually migrating new updates
+from the young level to the largest level using only bulk reads and writes
+(i.e., minimizing expensive seeks).
+### Manifest
+A MANIFEST file lists the set of sorted tables that make up each level, the
+corresponding key ranges, and other important metadata. A new MANIFEST file
+(with a new number embedded in the file name) is created whenever the database
+is reopened. The MANIFEST file is formatted as a log, and changes made to the
+serving state (as files are added or removed) are appended to this log.
+### Current
+CURRENT is a simple text file that contains the name of the latest MANIFEST
+file.
+### Info logs
+Informational messages are printed to files named LOG and LOG.old.
+### Others
+Other files used for miscellaneous purposes may also be present (LOCK, *.dbtmp).
+## Level 0
+When the log file grows above a certain size (4MB by default):
+Create a brand new memtable and log file and direct future updates here.
+In the background:
+1. Write the contents of the previous memtable to an sstable.
+2. Discard the memtable.
+3. Delete the old log file and the old memtable.
+4. Add the new sstable to the young (level-0) level.
+## Compactions
+When the size of level L exceeds its limit, we compact it in a background
+thread. The compaction picks a file from level L and all overlapping files from
+the next level L+1. Note that if a level-L file overlaps only part of a
+level-(L+1) file, the entire file at level-(L+1) is used as an input to the
+compaction and will be discarded after the compaction.  Aside: because level-0
+is special (files in it may overlap each other), we treat compactions from
+level-0 to level-1 specially: a level-0 compaction may pick more than one
+level-0 file in case some of these files overlap each other.
+A compaction merges the contents of the picked files to produce a sequence of
+level-(L+1) files. We switch to producing a new level-(L+1) file after the
+current output file has reached the target file size (2MB). We also switch to a
+new output file when the key range of the current output file has grown enough
+to overlap more than ten level-(L+2) files.  This last rule ensures that a later
+compaction of a level-(L+1) file will not pick up too much data from
+level-(L+2).
+The old files are discarded and the new files are added to the serving state.
+Compactions for a particular level rotate through the key space. In more detail,
+for each level L, we remember the ending key of the last compaction at level L.
+The next compaction for level L will pick the first file that starts after this
+key (wrapping around to the beginning of the key space if there is no such
+file).
+Compactions drop overwritten values. They also drop deletion markers if there
+are no higher numbered levels that contain a file whose range overlaps the
+current key.
+### Timing
+Level-0 compactions will read up to four 1MB files from level-0, and at worst
+all the level-1 files (10MB). I.e., we will read 14MB and write 14MB.
+Other than the special level-0 compactions, we will pick one 2MB file from level
+L. In the worst case, this will overlap ~ 12 files from level L+1 (10 because
+level-(L+1) is ten times the size of level-L, and another two at the boundaries
+since the file ranges at level-L will usually not be aligned with the file
+ranges at level-L+1). The compaction will therefore read 26MB and write 26MB.
+Assuming a disk IO rate of 100MB/s (ballpark range for modern drives), the worst
+compaction cost will be approximately 0.5 second.
+If we throttle the background writing to something small, say 10% of the full
+100MB/s speed, a compaction may take up to 5 seconds. If the user is writing at
+10MB/s, we might build up lots of level-0 files (~50 to hold the 5*10MB). This
+may significantly increase the cost of reads due to the overhead of merging more
+files together on every read.
+Solution 1: To reduce this problem, we might want to increase the log switching
+threshold when the number of level-0 files is large. Though the downside is that
+the larger this threshold, the more memory we will need to hold the
+corresponding memtable.
+Solution 2: We might want to decrease write rate artificially when the number of
+level-0 files goes up.
+Solution 3: We work on reducing the cost of very wide merges. Perhaps most of
+the level-0 files will have their blocks sitting uncompressed in the cache and
+we will only need to worry about the O(N) complexity in the merging iterator.
+### Number of files
+Instead of always making 2MB files, we could make larger files for larger levels
+to reduce the total file count, though at the expense of more bursty
+compactions.  Alternatively, we could shard the set of files into multiple
+directories.
+An experiment on an ext3 filesystem on Feb 04, 2011 shows the following timings
+to do 100K file opens in directories with varying number of files:
+| Files in directory | Microseconds to open a file |
+|-------------------:|----------------------------:|
+|               1000 |                           9 |
+|              10000 |                          10 |
+|             100000 |                          16 |
+So maybe even the sharding is not necessary on modern filesystems?
+## Recovery
+* Read CURRENT to find name of the latest committed MANIFEST
+* Read the named MANIFEST file
+* Clean up stale files
+* We could open all sstables here, but it is probably better to be lazy...
+* Convert log chunk to a new level-0 sstable
+* Start directing new writes to a new log file with recovered sequence#
+## Garbage collection of files
+`RemoveObsoleteFiles()` is called at the end of every compaction and at the end
+of recovery. It finds the names of all files in the database. It deletes all log
+files that are not the current log file. It deletes all table files that are not
+referenced from some level and are not the output of an active compaction.