Леонид Юрьев wrote:
Hi, Xinxin.
I will try to answer briefly, without a details:
- To allow readers be never blocked by a writer, LMDB provides a
snapshot of data, indexes and directory for each completed
transaction.
- Most of a db-pages (which is not changed by a particular
transaction) are "shared" between such snapshots. But any changes of
data itself and reflection to btree-indexes (include a particular
table, free-db, main-db and so forth) require a new pages to be used
and written to the disk.
- In a large db a small "one-byte" change may make "dirty" a lot of
db-pages (usualy 4K each). For example, one add/del/mod operation in
LDAP-db with size of few GB, requires about 50-100 page-level IOPS.
Correct, up to this last point. The degree of amplification is greatly
overstated.
See http://symas/com/mdb/ondisk/
The number of pages touched depends on the height of the B+tree, which
is O(logN) of the number of records. Even a tree of multiple terabytes
is unlikely to reach beyond a height of 5.
The minimum write amplification may be on the order of 8 pages for a
trivial write. But it also tends to be the maximum write amplification too.
Leonid.
P.S.
For highload uses-cases I made a few changes in our fork of OpenLDAP/LMDB.
A one of these features we called "LIFO reclaiming".
It give us 10-50 times performance boost, especially by engaging
benefits of write-back cache of storage subsystem.
Nowadays we used it in our production (telco) environment.
But currently ones is not safe for all cases, see
https://github.com/ReOpen/ReOpenLDAP/issues/2 and
https://github.com/ReOpen/ReOpenLDAP/issues/1.
The LIFO approach inherently breaks the safety guarantees of the LMDB
concurrency design, as I have already explained.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
