Re: reftable [v4]: new ref storage format

From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Aug 1, 2017, 23:54 UTC
Message-ID: <CAJo=hJv3O98t+GXDmh99EwXziapSmGKKNk075MhP6E0USyMXqQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJo=hJvFRJ7honjenB6sUofK14xiUXGwJ1DQHZyTauVKA5v5vw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
>>> 4th iteration of the reftable storage format.
>>> [...]
>>
>> Before we commit to Shawn's reftable proposal, I wanted to explore
>> what a contrasting design that is not block based would look like.
>
> I forgot to look at a 1k chunk size, as you suggested that might also
> be suitable. Here is the more complete experiment table:
>
>        | size   | seek_cold | seek_hot  |
> mh  1k | 36.6 M | 20.6 usec | 10.7 usec |
> mh  4k | 28.3 M | 24.5 usec | 14.5 usec |
> sp  4k | 29.2 M | 63.0 usec |  5.8 usec |
> sp 64k | 27.7 M | 35.6 usec | 23.3 usec |

Argh. I got that mh 1k size wrong, its actually 29.4M (not 36.6M!). Sorry for the noise.