An official website of the United States government
Dictionaries remain the most well studied class of data structures. A dictionary supports insertions, deletions, membership queries, and usually successor, predecessor, and extract-min. In a RAM, all such operations take O(log n) time on n elements. Dictionaries are often cross-referenced as follows. Consider a set of tuples {〈ai,bi,ci…〉}. A database might include more than one dictionary on such a set, for example, one indexed on the a ‘s, another on the b‘s, and so on. Once again, in a RAM, inserting into a set of L cross-referenced dictionaries takes O(L log n) time, as does deleting. The situation is more interesting in external memory. On a Disk Access Machine (DAM), B-trees achieve O(logB N) I/Os for insertions and deletions on a single dictionary and K-element range queries take optimal O(logB N + K/B) I/Os. These bounds are also achievable by a B-tree on cross-referenced dictionaries, with a slowdown of an L factor on insertion and deletions. In recent years, both the theory and practice of external- memory dictionaries has been revolutionized by write- optimization techniques. A dictionary is write optimized if it is close to a B-tree for query time while beating B-trees on insertions. The best (and optimal) dictionaries achieve a substantially improved insertion and deletion cost of amortized I/Os on a single dictionary while maintaining optimal O(log1+B∊ N + K/B)- I/O range queries. Although write optimization still helps for insertions into cross-referenced dictionaries, its value for deletions would seem to be greatly reduced. A deletion into a cross- referenced dictionary only specifies a key a. It seems to be necessary to look up the associated values b, c … in order to delete them from the other dictionaries. This takes Ω(logB N) I/Os, well above the per-dictionary write-optimization budget of So the total deletion cost is In short, for deletions, write optimization offers an advantage over B-trees in that L multiplies a lower order term, but when L = 2, write optimization seems to offer no asymptotic advantage over B-trees. That is, no known query- optimal solution for pairs of cross-referenced dictionaries seem to beat B-trees for deletions. In this paper, we show a lower bound establishing that a pair of cross-referenced dictionaries that are optimal for range queries and that supports deletions cannot match the write optimization bound available to insert-only dictionaries. This result thus establishes a limit to the applicability of write-optimization techniques on which many new databases and file systems are based. Read More: http://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/1.9781611974782.99
more »
« less
Flushing without cascades
Buffer-and-flush is a technique for transforming standard external-memory search trees into write-optimized search trees. In exchange for faster amortized insertions, buffer-and-flush can sometimes significantly increase the latency of operations by causing cascades of flushes. In this paper, we show that flushing cascades are not a fundamental consequence of the buffer-flushing technique, and can be removed entirely using randomization techniques. The underlying implementation of buffer flushing relies on a buffer-eviction strategy at each node in the tree. The ability for the user to select the buffer eviction strategy based on the workload has been shown to be important for performance, both in theory and in practice. In order to support arbitrary buffer-eviction strategies, we introduce the notion of a universal flush, which uses a universal eviction policy that can simulate any other eviction policy. This abstracts away the underlying eviction strategy, even allowing for workload-specific strategies that change dynamically. Our deamortization preserves the amortized throughput of the underlying flushing strategy on all workloads. In particular, with our deamortization and a node cache of size poly-logarithmic in the number of insertions performed on the tree, the amortized insertion cost matches the lower bound of Brodal and Fagerberg. For typical parameters, the lower bound is less than 1 I/O per insertion. For such parameters, our worst-case insertion cost is O(1) I/Os.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1637458
- PAR ID:
- 10192334
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the Annual ACMSIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms
- ISSN:
- 1557-9468
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Morin, P; Suri, S (Ed.)We define simple variants of zip trees, called zip-zip trees, which provide several advantages over zip trees, including overcoming a bias that favors smaller keys over larger ones. We analyze zip-zip trees theoretically and empirically, showing, e.g., that the expected depth of a node in an n-node zip-zip tree is at most 1.3863log n -1 + o(1), which matches the expected depth of treaps and binary search trees built by uniformly random insertions. Unlike these other data structures, however, zip-zip trees achieve their bounds using only O(loglog n) bits of metadata per node, w.h.p., as compared to the O(log n) bits per node required by treaps. In fact, we even describe a “just-in-time” zip-zip tree variant, which needs just an expected O(1) number of bits of metadata per node. Moreover, we can define zip-zip trees to be strongly history independent, whereas treaps are generally only weakly history independent. We also introduce biased zip-zip trees, which have an explicit bias based on key weights, so the expected depth of a key, k, with weight, w, is O(log W/w), where W is the weight of all keys in the weighted zip-zip tree. Finally, we show that one can easily make zip-zip trees partially persistent with only O(n) space overhead w.h.p.more » « less
-
Many key-value stores and database systems use log-structured merge-trees (LSM-trees) as their storage engines because of their excellent write performance. However, the read performance of LSM-trees is suboptimal due to the overlapping sorted runs. Most existing efforts rely on filters to reduce unnecessary I/Os, but filters fundamentally do not help locate items and often become the bottleneck of the system. We identify that the lack of efficient index is the root cause of subpar read performance in LSM-trees. In this paper, we propose Disco: a compact index for LSM-trees. Disco indexes all the keys in an LSM-tree, so a query does not have to search every run of the LSM-tree. It records compact key representations to minimize the number of key comparisons so as to minimize cache misses and I/Os for both point and range queries. Disco guarantees that both point queries and seeks issue at most one I/O to the underlying runs, achieving an I/O efficiency close to a B+-tree. Disco improves upon REMIX's pioneering multi-run index design with additional compact key representations to help improve read performance. The representations are compact so the cost of persisting Disco to disk is small. Moreover, while a traditional LSM-tree has to choose a more aggressive compaction policy that slows down write performance to have better read performance, a Disco-indexed LSM-tree can employ a write-efficient policy and still have good read performance. Experimental results show that Disco can save I/Os and improve point and range query performance by up to 220% over RocksDB while maintaining efficient writes.more » « less
-
Log-Structured Merge-trees (LSM-trees) have been widely used in modern NoSQL systems. Due to their out-of-place update design, LSM-trees have introduced memory walls among the memory components of multiple LSM-trees and between the write memory and the buffer cache. Optimal memory allocation among these regions is non-trivial because it is highly workload-dependent. Existing LSM-tree implementations instead adopt static memory allocation schemes due to their simplicity and robustness, sacrificing performance. In this paper, we attempt to break down these memory walls in LSM-based storage systems. We first present a memory management architecture that enables adaptive memory management. We then present a partitioned memory component structure with new flush policies to better exploit the write memory to minimize the write cost. To break down the memory wall between the write memory and the buffer cache, we further introduce a memory tuner that tunes the memory allocation between these two regions. We have conducted extensive experiments in the context of Apache AsterixDB using the YCSB and TPC-C benchmarks and we present the results here.more » « less
-
Waves of miseryis a phenomenon where spikes of many node splits occur over short periods of time in tree indexes. Waves of misery negatively affect the performance of tree indexes in insertion-heavy workloads. Waves of misery have been first observed in the context of the B-tree, where these waves cause unpredictable index performance. In particular, the performance of search and index-update operations deteriorate when a wave of misery takes place, but is more predictable between the waves. This paper investigates the presence or lack of waves of misery in several R-tree variants, and studies the extent of which these waves impact the performance of each variant. Interestingly, although having poorer query performance, the Linear and Quadratic R-trees are found to be more resilient to waves of misery than both the Hilbert and R*-trees. This paper presents several techniques to reduce the impact in performance of the waves of misery for the Hilbert and R*-trees. One way to eliminate waves of misery is to force node splits to take place at regular times before nodes become full to achieve deterministic performance. The other way is that upon splitting a node, do not split it evenly but rather at different node utilization factors. This allows leaf nodes not to fill at the same pace. We study the impact of two new techniques to mitigate waves of misery after the tree index has been constructed, namely Regular Elective Splits (RES, for short) and Unequal Random Splits (URS, for short). Our experimental investigation highlights the trade-offs in performance of the introduced techniques and the pros and cons of each technique.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975994.40
