fix bug with new sstable index format #1953
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
fulmicoton
reviewed
Mar 22, 2023
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| - EntryCount(VInt): number of entries | ||
| - StartPos(VInt): the start pos of the first (data) block referenced by this (index) block |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
pos is ambiguous. does that mean byte offset? is it not 0?
fulmicoton
reviewed
Mar 22, 2023
| @@ -151,6 +151,7 @@ impl SSTableIndexBuilder { | |||
|
|
|||
| sstable_writer.write_suffix(keep_len, &block.last_key_or_greater[keep_len..]); | |||
| sstable_writer.write_value(&block.block_addr); | |||
| sstable_writer.flush_block_if_required()?; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we handle having more than one block in the sstable_index itself? I thought is was a single monoblock we deserialized entirely to run binary search
fulmicoton
approved these changes
Mar 22, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
in #1943 , I introduced a small bug where the index-sstable wouldn't honor block size, and make a single block that's as large as needed. Fixing that uncovered a different issue: contrary to what the spec says, we did not actually support a multiblock index-sstable, for all but the 1st block, the
BlockAddr::byte_rangewould be plain wrong.Discovered while trying to assess the theoretical effect implementing something like #1948 could have