Paired Block Bloom Filter Algorithm

[udi-speedb]

Why :

Reduce false positives rate while using the same amount of memory.

What:

Develop a filter which is fast and low on CPU consumption on the one hand, but with a better memory footprint- FPR trade-off on the other hand.

Technical detail:

In the traditional bloom filter there is a tradeoff between memory usage and performance. Rocksdb blocked bloom filter takes less time but consumes extra memory.

Ribbon filter, on the other hand, takes ~30% less memory but is much slower than the bloom filter (factor of 4).

The idea is to improve bloom filter in both memory consumption and keep it high performant.

Who:

The proposed filter should be most beneficial when there is a need for a very small FPR. Typically this happens when the penalty of a false positive is very big compared to the filter test time (database on the disk), and when true positives are rare.

Integrate a new type of filter policy: Paired Block Bloom Filter

[erez-speedb]

Specific tests:

1. Standard tests with 24BPK on both main and the branch.
2. Filters fast and ribbon.
3. Paired compare to the best from before.
4. Compare 8 BPK to 24 on main.

Action for now, create the baseline on main for 1,2,4

[erez-speedb]

Additional tests bloom + pair Worse case scenario, DB in cache, all keys exists. Test: Fillup sequential, random reads. Best case, DB not in cache, get before write Test TBD Fillup n keys, random reads 10000X keys. -- small obj. Overwrite without filllup?

[udi-speedb]

The flag that sets the filter type in db_bench is filter_uri. Paired bloom (new): -filter_uri spdb.PairedBloomFilter:BPK (e.g., -filter_uri spdb.PairedBloomFilter:23.4) Fast Local Bloom: -filter_uri rocksdb.internal.FastLocalBloomFilter:BPK Ribbon: -filter_uri rocksdb.internal.Standard128RibbonFilter:BPK

[udi-speedb]

@erez-speedb I have pushed the branch rebased on latest main. Please go ahead with the basic performance tests we have agreed upon. Thanks

[erez-speedb]

./db_bench --compression_type=None -db=/data/ -num=80000000 -value_size=1000 -key_size=16 --delayed_write_rate=536870912 -report_interval_seconds=1 -max_write_buffe r_number=0 -histogram -duration=900 --use_existing_db -threads=50 -seek_nexts=100 -report_file=seekrandomwriterandom.csv -benchmark_read_rate_limit=0 -benchmark_write_rate_limit=0 --benchmarks=seekrandomwriterandom -filter_uri=spdb.PairedBloomFilter::23.4 -readwritepercent=95

failure creating filter policy[spdb.PairedBloomFilter::23.4]: Not implemented: Could not load FilterPolicy: spdb.PairedBloomFilter::23.4

[udi-speedb]

@erez-speedb - Sorry, my mistake in the example. There should be a single ':' not '::' -filter_uri=spdb.PairedBloomFilter:23.4

[erez-speedb]

Rerunning tests

[udi-speedb]

One thing that needs attention: The performance of the filter is heavily affected by the availability of AVX2 support in the processor.

1. We must make sure to compare rocksdb / us on platforms that have the same AVX2 support.
2. We may wish to compare rocksdb / us with AVX2 and without AVX2.
3. The beneficial use case is when using AVX2 so this is a requirement for the best case scenario.

[isaac-io]

Blocked by #101.

[isaac-io]

Didn't show an improvement with #101, so we need to define a good test to show the value of the feature.

[erez-speedb]

Running the test on a single HDD (simulating disk as bottleneck) and with DB size larger than RAM Showed clear benefit

With no additional memory usage, compare to the default bloom with the same BPK

[isaac-io]

Depends on #71 and on #123.

[Yuval-Ariel]

QA passed on 4cf14cb2ae85e4c6ad906e26c4aa2269578f3716

[erez-speedb]

Pass performance tests.