From 64b9d015523b4ae379ff2d72fc73da173be8a712 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mohammad Nweider <nweiderm@amazon.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 13:02:15 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Ticket 49401 - improve valueset sorted performance on delete
Bug Description: valueset sorted maintains a list of syntax sorted
references to the attributes of the entry. During addition these are
modified and added properly, so they stay sorted.
However, in the past to maintain the sorted property, during a delete
we would need to remove the vs->sorted array, and recreate it via qsort,
While this was an improvement from past (where we would removed
vs->sorted during an attr delete), it still has performance implications
on very very large datasets, IE 50,000 member groups with
addition/deletion, large entry caches and replication.
Fix Description: Implement a new algorithm that is able to maintain
existing sort data in a near linear time.
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49401
Author: nweiderm, wibrown
Review by: wibrown, lkrispen, tbordaz (Thanks nweiderm!)
(cherry picked from commit a43a8efc7907116146b505ac40f18fac71f474b0)
---
ldap/servers/slapd/valueset.c | 171 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 102 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ldap/servers/slapd/valueset.c b/ldap/servers/slapd/valueset.c
index e22bc9c39..ae0a13fdc 100644
--- a/ldap/servers/slapd/valueset.c
+++ b/ldap/servers/slapd/valueset.c
@@ -741,7 +741,10 @@ valueset_array_purge(const Slapi_Attr *a, Slapi_ValueSet *vs, const CSN *csn)
size_t i = 0;
size_t j = 0;
int nextValue = 0;
+ int nv = 0;
int numValues = 0;
+ Slapi_Value **va2 = NULL;
+ int *sorted2 = NULL;
/* Loop over all the values freeing the old ones. */
for(i = 0; i < vs->num; i++)
@@ -752,91 +755,122 @@ valueset_array_purge(const Slapi_Attr *a, Slapi_ValueSet *vs, const CSN *csn)
} else {
j = i;
}
- csnset_purge(&(vs->va[j]->v_csnset),csn);
- if (vs->va[j]->v_csnset == NULL) {
- slapi_value_free(&vs->va[j]);
- vs->va[j] = NULL;
- } else if (vs->va[j] != NULL) {
- /* This value survived, we should count it. */
- numValues++;
+ if (vs->va[j]) {
+ csnset_purge(&(vs->va[j]->v_csnset),csn);
+ if (vs->va[j]->v_csnset == NULL) {
+ slapi_value_free(&vs->va[j]);
+ /* Set the removed value to NULL so we know later to skip it */
+ vs->va[j] = NULL;
+ if (vs->sorted) {
+ /* Mark the value in sorted for removal */
+ vs->sorted[i] = -1;
+ }
+ } else {
+ /* This value survived, we should count it. */
+ numValues++;
+ }
}
}
- /* Now compact the value/sorted list. */
+ /* Compact vs->va and vs->sorted only when there're
+ * remaining values ie: numValues is greater than 0 */
/*
- * Because we want to preserve the sorted array, this is complicated.
+ * Algorithm explination: We start with a pair of arrays - the attrs, and the sorted array that provides
+ * a lookup into it:
+ *
+ * va: [d e a c b] sorted: [2 4 3 0 1]
+ *
+ * When we remove the element b, we NULL it, and we have to mark the place where it "was" as a -1 to
+ * flag it's removal.
+ *
+ * va: [d e a c NULL] sorted: [2 -1 3 0 1]
+ *
+ * Now a second va is created with the reduced allocation,
+ *
+ * va2: [ X X X X ] ....
*
- * We have an array of values:
- * [ b, a, c, NULL, e, NULL, NULL, d]
- * And an array of indicies that are sorted.
- * [ 1, 0, 2, 7, 4, 3, 5, 6 ]
- * Were we to iterate over the sorted array, we get refs to the values in
- * some order.
- * The issue is now we must *remove* from both the values *and* the sorted.
+ * Now we loop over sorted, skipping -1 that we find. In a new counter we create new sorted
+ * references, and move the values compacting them in the process.
+ * va: [d e a c NULL]
+ * va2: [a x x x]
+ * sorted: [_0 -1 3 0 1]
*
- * Previously, we just discarded this, because too hard. Now we try to keep
- * it. The issue is that this is surprisingly hard to actually keep in
- * sync.
+ * Looping a few more times would yield:
*
- * We can't just blindly move the values down: That breaks the sorted array
- * and we would need to iterate over the sorted array multiple times to
- * achieve this.
+ * va2: [a c x x]
+ * sorted: [_0 _1 3 0 1]
+ *
+ * va2: [a c d x]
+ * sorted: [_0 _1 _2 0 1]
+ *
+ * va2: [a c d e]
+ * sorted: [_0 _1 _2 _3 1]
+ *
+ * Not only does this sort va, but with sorted, we have a faster lookup, and it will benefit cache
+ * lookup.
*
- * It's actually going to be easier to just ditch the sorted, compact vs
- * and then qsort the array.
*/
+ if (numValues > 0) {
+ if(vs->sorted) {
+ /* Let's allocate va2 and sorted2 */
+ va2 = (Slapi_Value **) slapi_ch_malloc( (numValues + 1) * sizeof(Slapi_Value *));
+ sorted2 = (int *) slapi_ch_malloc( (numValues + 1)* sizeof(int));
+ }
- j = 0;
- while (nextValue < numValues && j < vs->num)
- {
- /* nextValue is what we are looking at now
- * j tracks along the array getting next elements.
- *
- * [ b, a, c, NULL, e, NULL, NULL, d]
- * ^nv ^j
- * [ b, a, c, e, NULL, NULL, NULL, d]
- * ^nv ^j
- * [ b, a, c, e, NULL, NULL, NULL, d]
- * ^nv ^j
- * [ b, a, c, e, NULL, NULL, NULL, d]
- * ^nv ^j
- * [ b, a, c, e, NULL, NULL, NULL, d]
- * ^nv ^j
- * [ b, a, c, e, d, NULL, NULL, NULL]
- * ^nv ^j
- */
- if (vs->va[nextValue] == NULL) {
- /* Advance j till we find something */
- while (vs->va[j] == NULL) {
- j++;
+ /* I is the index for the *new* va2 array */
+ for(i=0; i<vs->num; i++) {
+ if (vs->sorted) {
+ /* Skip any removed values from the index */
+ while((nv < vs->num) && (-1 == vs->sorted[nv])) {
+ nv++;
+ }
+ /* We have a remaining value, add it to the va */
+ if(nv < vs->num) {
+ va2[i] = vs->va[vs->sorted[nv]];
+ sorted2[i] = i;
+ nv++;
+ }
+ } else {
+ while((nextValue < vs->num) && (NULL == vs->va[nextValue])) {
+ nextValue++;
+ }
+
+ if(nextValue < vs->num) {
+ vs->va[i] = vs->va[nextValue];
+ nextValue++;
+ } else {
+ break;
+ }
}
- /* We have something! */
- vs->va[nextValue] = vs->va[j];
+ }
+
+ if (vs->sorted) {
+ /* Finally replace the valuearray and adjust num, max */
+ slapi_ch_free((void **)&vs->va);
+ slapi_ch_free((void **)&vs->sorted);
+ vs->va = va2;
+ vs->sorted = sorted2;
+ vs->num = numValues;
+ vs->max = vs->num + 1;
+ } else {
+ vs->num = numValues;
+ }
+
+ for (j = vs->num; j < vs->max; j++) {
vs->va[j] = NULL;
+ if (vs->sorted) {
+ vs->sorted[j] = -1;
+ }
}
- nextValue++;
- }
- /* Fix up the number of values */
- vs->num = numValues;
- /* Should we re-alloc values to be smaller? */
- /* Other parts of DS are lazy. Lets clean our list */
- for (j = vs->num; j < vs->max; j++) {
- vs->va[j] = NULL;
+ } else {
+ slapi_valueset_done(vs);
}
- /* All the values were deleted, we can discard the whole array. */
- if(vs->num == 0) {
- if(vs->sorted) {
- slapi_ch_free ((void **)&vs->sorted);
- }
- slapi_ch_free ((void **)&vs->va);
- vs->va = NULL;
- vs->max = 0;
- } else if (vs->sorted != NULL) {
- /* We still have values! rebuild the sorted array */
+ /* We still have values but not sorted array! rebuild it */
+ if(vs->num > VALUESET_ARRAY_SORT_THRESHOLD && vs->sorted == NULL) {
+ vs->sorted = (int *) slapi_ch_malloc( vs->max* sizeof(int));
valueset_array_to_sorted(a, vs);
}
-
#ifdef DEBUG
PR_ASSERT(vs->num == 0 || (vs->num > 0 && vs->va[0] != NULL));
size_t index = 0;
@@ -847,7 +881,6 @@ valueset_array_purge(const Slapi_Attr *a, Slapi_ValueSet *vs, const CSN *csn)
PR_ASSERT(vs->va[index] == NULL);
}
#endif
-
/* return the number of remaining values */
return numValues;
}
--
2.13.6