Optionally issue DeleteRange in *whilewriting benchmarks
#10552
Closed
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
cbi42
changed the title
*whilewriting benchmarksDeleteRange in *whilewriting benchmarks
cbi42
force-pushed
the
delete-range-readwhilewriting
branch
from
21e3972
to
3cacd05
Compare
cbi42
force-pushed
the
delete-range-readwhilewriting
branch
from
3cacd05
to
c937515
Compare
|
@cbi42 has imported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator. |
facebook-github-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 14, 2022
Summary: Each read from memtable used to read and fragment all the range tombstones into a `FragmentedRangeTombstoneList`. #10380 improved the inefficient here by caching a `FragmentedRangeTombstoneList` with each immutable memtable. This PR extends the caching to mutable memtables. The fragmented range tombstone can be constructed in either read (This PR) or write path (#10584). With both implementation, each `DeleteRange()` will invalidate the cache, and the difference is where the cache is re-constructed.`CoreLocalArray` is used to store the cache with each memtable so that multi-threaded reads can be efficient. More specifically, each core will have a shared_ptr to a shared_ptr pointing to the current cache. Each read thread will only update the reference count in its core-local shared_ptr, and this is only needed when reading from mutable memtables. The choice between write path and read path is not an easy one: they are both improvement compared to no caching in the current implementation, but they favor different operations and could cause regression in the other operation (read vs write). The write path caching in (#10584) leads to a cleaner implementation, but I chose the read path caching here to avoid significant regression in write performance when there is a considerable amount of range tombstones in a single memtable (the number from the benchmark below suggests >1000 with concurrent writers). Note that even though the fragmented range tombstone list is only constructed in `DeleteRange()` operations, it could block other writes from proceeding, and hence affects overall write performance. Pull Request resolved: #10547 Test Plan: - TestGet() in stress test is updated in #10553 to compare Get() result against expected state: `./db_stress_branch --readpercent=57 --prefixpercent=4 --writepercent=25 -delpercent=5 --iterpercent=5 --delrangepercent=4` - Perf benchmark: tested read and write performance where a memtable has 0, 1, 10, 100 and 1000 range tombstones. ``` ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readrandom --writes_per_range_tombstone=200 --max_write_buffer_number=100 --min_write_buffer_number_to_merge=100 --writes=200000 --reads=100000 --disable_auto_compactions --max_num_range_tombstones=1000 ``` Write perf regressed since the cost of constructing fragmented range tombstone list is shifted from every read to a single write. 6cbe5d8 is included in the last column as a reference to see performance impact on multi-thread reads if `CoreLocalArray` is not used. micros/op averaged over 5 runs: first 4 columns are for fillrandom, last 4 columns are for readrandom. | |fillrandom main | write path caching | read path caching |memtable V3 (#10308) | readrandom main | write path caching | read path caching |memtable V3 | |--- |--- |--- |--- |--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 0 |6.35 |6.15 |5.82 |6.12 |2.24 |2.26 |2.03 |2.07 | | 1 |5.99 |5.88 |5.77 |6.28 |2.65 |2.27 |2.24 |2.5 | | 10 |6.15 |6.02 |5.92 |5.95 |5.15 |2.61 |2.31 |2.53 | | 100 |5.95 |5.78 |5.88 |6.23 |28.31 |2.34 |2.45 |2.94 | | 100 25 threads |52.01 |45.85 |46.18 |47.52 |35.97 |3.34 |3.34 |3.56 | | 1000 |6.0 |7.07 |5.98 |6.08 |333.18 |2.86 |2.7 |3.6 | | 1000 25 threads |52.6 |148.86 |79.06 |45.52 |473.49 |3.66 |3.48 |4.38 | - Benchmark performance of`readwhilewriting` from #10552, 100 range tombstones are written: `./db_bench --benchmarks=readwhilewriting --writes_per_range_tombstone=500 --max_write_buffer_number=100 --min_write_buffer_number_to_merge=100 --writes=100000 --reads=500000 --disable_auto_compactions --max_num_range_tombstones=10000 --finish_after_writes` readrandom micros/op: | |main |write path caching |read path caching |memtable V3 | |---|---|---|---|---| | single thread |48.28 |1.55 |1.52 |1.96 | | 25 threads |64.3 |2.55 |2.67 |2.64 | Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38895410 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 930bfc309dd1b2f4e8e9042f5126785bba577559
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.
Summary: Optionally issue DeleteRange in
*whilewritingbenchmarks. This happens inBGWriterand uses similar logic as inDoWriteto issue DeleteRange operations. I added this when I was benchmarking #10547, but this should be an independent PR.Test plan: ran some benchmarks with various delete range options, e.g.
./db_bench --benchmarks=readwhilewriting --writes_per_range_tombstone=100 --writes=200000 --reads=1000000 --disable_auto_compactions --max_num_range_tombstones=10000