Use atomic batching of writes#4
Conversation
|
Thank you for your pull request and welcome to our community. We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and we don't seem to have you on file. In order for us to review and merge your code, please sign up at https://code.facebook.com/cla. If you are contributing on behalf of someone else (eg your employer), the individual CLA may not be sufficient and your employer may need the corporate CLA signed. If you have received this in error or have any questions, please contact us at cla@fb.com. Thanks! |
|
Thank you for signing our Contributor License Agreement. We can now accept your code for this (and any) Facebook open source project. Thanks! |
Under the hood, RocksDB->put uses batches anyway. This makes the use "over the hood". I'm guessing it also means that we only have to acquire locks against the memtable+WAL once, instead of multiple times.
hashbrowncipher
force-pushed
the
batching
branch
from
39ec272 to
782a835
Compare
| } | ||
| finally | ||
| { | ||
| indexer.commit(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure about this. Why do we commit the indexer when we've experienced an exception?
2 participants
Under the hood, RocksDB->put uses batches anyway. This makes the use "over the
hood". I'm guessing it also means that we only have to acquire locks against
the memtable+WAL once, instead of multiple times.
Testing:
ant test -Dtest.name=RocksDBCFTest