-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 588
HDDS-2380. Use the Table.isExist() API instead of get() API while checking for presence of key. #102
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
Closed
Closed
HDDS-2380. Use the Table.isExist() API instead of get() API while checking for presence of key. #102
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This patch looks correct, but I have a question about the earlier patch that went in to support this.
The documentation of keyMayExist -- says this.
public boolean keyMayExist(ColumnFamilyHandle columnFamilyHandle,
byte[] key,
java.lang.StringBuilder value)
If the key definitely does not exist in the database, then this method returns false, else true. This check is potentially lighter-weight than invoking DB::Get(). One way to make this lighter weight is to avoid doing any IOs.
Parameters:
columnFamilyHandle - ColumnFamilyHandle instance
key - byte array of a key to search for
value - StringBuilder instance which is a out parameter if a value is found in block-cache.
There is a value parameter in the call, which is documented as -- out parameter if the value is found in the block cache.
The objective of calling into this function, I suppose to leverage that -- Mind you the keyMayExist is not bloom filter lookup, it says If the value is in memory already you get access to it.
However, if you read the code -- it looks like we ignore the possiblity of gettting the value back from the block cache.
Here is the code that was committed via
"HDDS-1691 : RDBTable#isExist should use Rocksdb#keyMayExist"
// RocksDB#keyMayExist // If the key definitely does not exist in the database, then this // method returns false, else true. return db.keyMayExist(handle, key, new StringBuilder()) && db.get(handle, key) != null;So how does this call eliminate the IO cost, since the new StringBuilder is completely ignored ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you @anuengineer. This is a valid observation. I will fix the working of the isExist method in #101 where we are modifying the implementation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, thanks @anuengineer for flagging it. Yes in true case if we get value from block cache we can use that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
perfect, let me go ahead and commit this patch, since you will fix that issue in the #101 pull request.