[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [LMDB] Large transactions
- To: Jürgen Baier <baier@semedy.com>, openldap-technical@openldap.org
- Subject: Re: [LMDB] Large transactions
- From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 14:13:41 +0000
- In-reply-to: <WM!99d2fce85eced1b4081353687c9e751cb7cd268db338112504eed34175489387526ebfe874cb6712e9fcc961e38e2474!@mailstronghold-1.zmailcloud.com>
- References: <555c7e78-a5e4-23ee-5b5c-2720b54e69e4@semedy.com> <WM!354c5fbb04a8692d321d46697249756ed1ce65dc4cdbf592366138261b88ed7902879da025f923c184d6c4eb02473dc9!@mailstronghold-2.zmailcloud.com> <ebae0de1-bfc6-8d38-0db5-e65d39d7fa72@symas.com> <a157fa5e-c175-7b96-7b9b-046633ce07ea@semedy.com> <WM!99d2fce85eced1b4081353687c9e751cb7cd268db338112504eed34175489387526ebfe874cb6712e9fcc961e38e2474!@mailstronghold-1.zmailcloud.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0 SeaMonkey/2.53a1
Jürgen Baier wrote:
Hi,
thanks for the answer. However, I still have a follow-up question on this
benchmark.
When I add 1 billion key/value pairs (16 byte MD5) to the LMDB database (in a
single transaction (but I also get similar results when I add the same data in
multiple transactions)) I get the following results:
Windows, without MDB_WRITEMAP: 46h
Windows, with MDB_WRITEMAP: 6h (!)
Linux (ext4), without MDB_WRITEMAP: 75h
Linux (ext4), with MDB_WRITEMAP: 73h
MDB_WRITEMAP seems to have a huge impact on write performance on Windows, but
on Linux I do not see similar improvements.
So I have two questions:
1) Could the the difference between Linux and Windows performance regarding
the MDB_WRITEMAP option be related to the fact that LMDB currently uses sparse
files on Linux, but not on Windows?
Unlikely.
2) Is there a way to speed up Linux? Is there a way to pre-allocate the
data.mdb on startup?
Try it and see. Use the env fd with fallocate(2).
Thanks,
Jürgen
On 21.11.17 21:17, Howard Chu wrote:
Jürgen Baier wrote:
Hi,
I have a question about LMDB (I hope this is the right mailing list for
such a question).
I'm running a benchmark (which is similar to my intended use case) which
does not behave as I hoped. I store 1 billion key/value pairs in a single
LMDB database. _In a single transaction._ The keys are MD5 hash codes from
random data (16 bytes) and the value is the string "test".
The documentation about mdb_page_spill says (as far as I understand) that
this function is called to prevent MDB_TXN_FULL situations. Does this mean
that my transaction is simply too large to be handled efficiently by LMDB?
Yes.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/