On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Shawn Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Shawn Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 4th iteration of the reftable storage format. >>> [...] >> >> Before we commit to Shawn's reftable proposal, I wanted to explore >> what a contrasting design that is not block based would look like. > > I forgot to look at a 1k chunk size, as you suggested that might also > be suitable. Here is the more complete experiment table: > > | size | seek_cold | seek_hot | > mh 1k | 36.6 M | 20.6 usec | 10.7 usec | > mh 4k | 28.3 M | 24.5 usec | 14.5 usec | > sp 4k | 29.2 M | 63.0 usec | 5.8 usec | > sp 64k | 27.7 M | 35.6 usec | 23.3 usec | Argh. I got that mh 1k size wrong, its actually 29.4M (not 36.6M!). Sorry for the noise.
