1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
|
\captionsetup[subfloat]{justification=centering}
\section{Extensions to the Framework}
\label{sec:discussion}
In this section, various extensions of the framework are considered.
Specifically, the applicability of the framework to external or distributed
data structures is discussed, as well as the use of the framework to add
automatic support for concurrent updates and sampling to extended SSIs.
\Paragraph{Larger-than-Memory Data.} This framework can be applied to external
static sampling structures with minimal modification. As a proof-of-concept,
the IRS structure was extended with support for shards containing external ISAM
trees. This structure supports storing a configurable number of shards in
memory, and the rest on disk, making it well suited for operating in
memory-constrained environments. The on-disk shards contain standard ISAM
trees, with $8\text{KiB}$ page-aligned nodes. The external version of the
index only supports tombstone-based deletes, as tagging would require random
writes. In principle a hybrid approach to deletes is possible, where a delete
first searches the in-memory data for the record to be deleted, tagging it if
found. If the record is not found, then a tombstone could be inserted. As the
data size grows, though, and the preponderance of data is found on disk, this
approach would largely revert to the standard tombstone approach in practice.
External settings make the framework even more attractive, in terms of
performance characteristics, due to the different cost model. In external data
structures, performance is typically measured in terms of the number of IO
operations, meaning that much of the overhead introduced by the framework for
tasks like querying the mutable buffer, building auxiliary structures, extra
random number generations due to the shard alias structure, and the like,
become far less significant.
Because the framework maintains immutability of shards, it is also well suited for
use on top of distributed file-systems or with other distributed data
abstractions like RDDs in Apache Spark~\cite{rdd}. Each shard can be
encapsulated within an immutable file in HDFS or an RDD in Spark. A centralized
control node or driver program can manage the mutable buffer, flushing it into
a new file or RDD when it is full, merging with existing files or RDDs using
the same reconstruction scheme already discussed for the framework. This setup
allows for datasets exceeding the capacity of a single node to be supported. As
an example, XDB~\cite{li19} features an RDD-based distributed sampling
structure that could be supported by this framework.
\Paragraph{Concurrency.} The immutability of the majority of the structures
within the index makes for a straightforward concurrency implementation.
Concurrency control on the buffer is made trivial by the fact it is a simple,
unsorted array. The rest of the structure is never updated (aside from possible
delete tagging), and so concurrency becomes a simple matter of delaying the
freeing of memory used by internal structures until all the threads accessing
them have exited, rather than immediately on merge completion. A very basic
concurrency implementation can be achieved by using the tombstone delete
policy, and a reference counting scheme to control the deletion of the shards
following reconstructions. Multiple insert buffers can be used to improve
insertion throughput, as this will allow inserts to proceed in parallel with
merges, ultimately allowing concurrency to scale up to the point of being
bottlenecked by memory bandwidth and available storage. This proof-of-concept
implementation is based on a simplified version of an approach proposed by
Golan-Gueta et al. for concurrent log-structured data stores
\cite{golan-gueta15}.
|