feat(store)!: Support for different key layout #2327
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jmalicevic
added
the
P:storage-optimization
jmalicevic
changed the title
mzabaluev
reviewed
Feb 16, 2024
| @@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ type BlockStore struct { | |||
| mtx cmtsync.RWMutex | |||
| base int64 | |||
| height int64 | |||
|
|
|||
| dbKeyLayout BlockKeyLayout | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Am I wrong in thinking that the BlockStore API is at a too low abstraction level to be effectively implemented in all suitable database backends?
It assumes a global key-value store and segregates relations with prefixes, while using multiple separate KV trees (if supported by the DB engine, which exist in the wild) might allow tuning specifically for different logical data tables. In particular, this API rules out an efficient SQL implementation.
This is an architectural musing, not necessarily calling for action in this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mzabaluev that's something to keep in mind, for sure 👍 However, I'm skeptical about switching to an SQL DB (SQLite) in v1 as it requires planning, execution, and evaluation (benchmarking, testing). Maybe this is something we should examine when picking a single DB storage.
This was referenced Feb 19, 2024
…for-two-key-layouts
…for-two-key-layouts
…for-two-key-layouts
…for-two-key-layouts
This was
linked to
issues
Mar 12, 2024
melekes
reviewed
Mar 13, 2024
melekes
reviewed
Mar 13, 2024
Co-authored-by: Anton Kaliaev <anton.kalyaev@gmail.com>
|
@mergify backport v1.x |
✅ Backports have been created
|
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2024
Closes #2057 , #1041 If we keep the current design, we are also closing #1822 Supersedes #1764 This PR implements support for an additional DB key representation. The different key layout sorts the entries by height instead of lexicographically as in the current version of Comet. When starting this work, we hoped that the new layout would significantly outperform the current layout. As we do not have sufficient real world evidence for this, this PR introduces a DB key layout interface that would allow Comet to easily integrate a more preferential key representation without major breaking changes. The layout using ordercode is introduced as experimental, allowing users to easily experiment with this. This layout was thoroughly tested as part of #1044 and all results will be in a report closing the mentioned PR. Locally tested: - Empty stores get initialized with v2 - Existing stores without a version key get initialized to v1 and the key is set - When a nodes' stores are deleted and we boot it up again that node uses v2 while the rest of the nodes use v1 <!-- Please add a reference to the issue that this PR addresses and indicate which files are most critical to review. If it fully addresses a particular issue, please include "Closes #XXX" (where "XXX" is the issue number). If this PR is non-trivial/large/complex, please ensure that you have either created an issue that the team's had a chance to respond to, or had some discussion with the team prior to submitting substantial pull requests. The team can be reached via GitHub Discussions or the Cosmos Network Discord server in the #cometbft channel. GitHub Discussions is preferred over Discord as it allows us to keep track of conversations topically. https://github.com/cometbft/cometbft/discussions If the work in this PR is not aligned with the team's current priorities, please be advised that it may take some time before it is merged - especially if it has not yet been discussed with the team. See the project board for the team's current priorities: https://github.com/orgs/cometbft/projects/1 --> --- #### PR checklist - [x] Tests written/updated - [x] Changelog entry added in `.changelog` (we use [unclog](https://github.com/informalsystems/unclog) to manage our changelog) - [ ] Updated relevant documentation (`docs/` or `spec/`) and code comments - [x] Title follows the [Conventional Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/) spec --------- Co-authored-by: Anton Kaliaev <anton.kalyaev@gmail.com> (cherry picked from commit 55638e8)
4 tasks
melekes
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2024
Closes #2057 , #1041 If we keep the current design, we are also closing #1822 Supersedes #1764 This PR implements support for an additional DB key representation. The different key layout sorts the entries by height instead of lexicographically as in the current version of Comet. When starting this work, we hoped that the new layout would significantly outperform the current layout. As we do not have sufficient real world evidence for this, this PR introduces a DB key layout interface that would allow Comet to easily integrate a more preferential key representation without major breaking changes. The layout using ordercode is introduced as experimental, allowing users to easily experiment with this. This layout was thoroughly tested as part of #1044 and all results will be in a report closing the mentioned PR. Locally tested: - Empty stores get initialized with v2 - Existing stores without a version key get initialized to v1 and the key is set - When a nodes' stores are deleted and we boot it up again that node uses v2 while the rest of the nodes use v1 --- #### PR checklist - [x] Tests written/updated - [x] Changelog entry added in `.changelog` (we use [unclog](https://github.com/informalsystems/unclog) to manage our changelog) - [ ] Updated relevant documentation (`docs/` or `spec/`) and code comments - [x] Title follows the [Conventional Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/) spec <hr>This is an automatic backport of pull request #2327 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com). Co-authored-by: Jasmina Malicevic <jasmina.dustinac@gmail.com>
cason
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 5, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #2057 , #1041
If we keep the current design, we are also closing #1822
Supersedes #1764
This PR implements support for an additional DB key representation. The different key layout sorts the entries by height instead of lexicographically as in the current version of Comet.
When starting this work, we hoped that the new layout would significantly outperform the current layout. As we do not have sufficient real world evidence for this, this PR introduces a DB key layout interface that would allow Comet to easily integrate a more preferential key representation without major breaking changes.
The layout using ordercode is introduced as experimental, allowing users to easily experiment with this.
This layout was thoroughly tested as part of #1044 and all results will be in a report closing the mentioned PR.
Locally tested:
PR checklist
.changelog(we use unclog to manage our changelog)docs/orspec/) and code comments