-
由 Peter Dillinger 提交于
Summary: With many millions of keys, the old Bloom filter implementation for the block-based table (format_version <= 4) would have excessive FP rate due to the limitations of feeding the Bloom filter with a 32-bit hash. This change computes an estimated inflated FP rate due to this effect and warns in the log whenever an SST filter is constructed (almost certainly a "full" not "partitioned" filter) that exceeds 1.5x FP rate due to this effect. The detailed condition is only checked if 3 million keys or more have been added to a filter, as this should be a lower bound for common bits/key settings (< 20). Recommended remedies include smaller SST file size, using format_version >= 5 (for new Bloom filter), or using partitioned filters. This does not change behavior other than generating warnings for some constructed filters using the old implementation. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/6317 Test Plan: Example with warning, 15M keys @ 15 bits / key: (working_mem_size_mb is just to stop after building one filter if it's large) $ ./filter_bench -quick -impl=0 -working_mem_size_mb=1 -bits_per_key=15 -average_keys_per_filter=15000000 2>&1 | grep 'FP rate' [WARN] [/block_based/filter_policy.cc:292] Using legacy SST/BBT Bloom filter with excessive key count (15.0M @ 15bpk), causing estimated 1.8x higher filter FP rate. Consider using new Bloom with format_version>=5, smaller SST file size, or partitioned filters. Predicted FP rate %: 0.766702 Average FP rate %: 0.66846 Example without warning (150K keys): $ ./filter_bench -quick -impl=0 -working_mem_size_mb=1 -bits_per_key=15 -average_keys_per_filter=150000 2>&1 | grep 'FP rate' Predicted FP rate %: 0.422857 Average FP rate %: 0.379301 $ With more samples at 15 bits/key: 150K keys -> no warning; actual: 0.379% FP rate (baseline) 1M keys -> no warning; actual: 0.396% FP rate, 1.045x 9M keys -> no warning; actual: 0.563% FP rate, 1.485x 10M keys -> warning (1.5x); actual: 0.564% FP rate, 1.488x 15M keys -> warning (1.8x); actual: 0.668% FP rate, 1.76x 25M keys -> warning (2.4x); actual: 0.880% FP rate, 2.32x At 10 bits/key: 150K keys -> no warning; actual: 1.17% FP rate (baseline) 1M keys -> no warning; actual: 1.16% FP rate 10M keys -> no warning; actual: 1.32% FP rate, 1.13x 25M keys -> no warning; actual: 1.63% FP rate, 1.39x 35M keys -> warning (1.6x); actual: 1.81% FP rate, 1.55x At 5 bits/key: 150K keys -> no warning; actual: 9.32% FP rate (baseline) 25M keys -> no warning; actual: 9.62% FP rate, 1.03x 200M keys -> no warning; actual: 12.2% FP rate, 1.31x 250M keys -> warning (1.5x); actual: 12.8% FP rate, 1.37x 300M keys -> warning (1.6x); actual: 13.4% FP rate, 1.43x The reason for the modest inaccuracy at low bits/key is that the assumption of independence between a collision between 32-hash values feeding the filter and an FP in the filter is not quite true for implementations using "simple" logic to compute indices from the stock hash result. There's math on this in my dissertation, but I don't think it's worth the effort just for these extreme cases (> 100 million keys and low-ish bits/key). Differential Revision: D19471715 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: f80c96893a09bf1152630ff0b964e5cdd7e35c68
8aa99fc7