Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

The rate of effective use of memory is low when doing sst merge, is it right? #49

Closed
xtlx2000 opened this issue Dec 27, 2013 · 2 comments

Comments

@xtlx2000
Copy link

the whole sst file must be loaded when doing sst merge, some useless value will be read into memory repeatedly, a lot of useless values can cost much memory,is it right?

@liukai
Copy link
Contributor

liukai commented Jan 2, 2014

Can you elaborate this problem a little bit more? What are the "useless values"?

Right now when compacting sst files, we'll not load the whole file; instead, we'll read 1 block (by default it is 4k) to the memory.

@mdcallag
Copy link
Contributor

mdcallag commented Jan 2, 2014

Is there an option to use madvise for those reads?

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Kai Liu notifications@github.com wrote:

Can you elaborate this problem a little bit more? What are the "useless
values"?

Right now when compacting sst files, we'll not load the whole file;
instead, we'll read 1 block (by default it is 4k) to the memory.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/49#issuecomment-31474480
.

Mark Callaghan
mdcallag@gmail.com

DorianZheng pushed a commit to DorianZheng/rocksdb that referenced this issue Oct 9, 2018
DorianZheng pushed a commit to DorianZheng/rocksdb that referenced this issue Nov 24, 2018
DorianZheng pushed a commit to DorianZheng/rocksdb that referenced this issue Dec 10, 2018
DorianZheng pushed a commit to DorianZheng/rocksdb that referenced this issue Dec 10, 2018
Nazgolze pushed a commit to Nazgolze/rocksdb-1 that referenced this issue Sep 21, 2021
Nazgolze pushed a commit to Nazgolze/rocksdb-1 that referenced this issue Sep 21, 2021
use more efficient emptiness checking
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants