Note that streams produced by XADD in previous broken versions having
elements with 4096 bytes or more will be permanently broken and must be
created again from scratch.
Fix#4428Fix#4349
Note that streams produced by XADD in previous broken versions having
elements with 4096 bytes or more will be permanently broken and must be
created again from scratch.
Fix#4428Fix#4349
Note that streams produced by XADD in previous broken versions having
elements with 4096 bytes or more will be permanently broken and must be
created again from scratch.
Fix#4428Fix#4349
After checking with the community via Twitter (here:
https://twitter.com/antirez/status/915130876861788161) the verdict was to
use ":". However I later realized, after users lamented the fact that
it's hard to copy IDs just with double click, that this was the reason
why I moved to "." in the first instance. Fortunately "-", that was the
other option with most votes, also gets selected with double click on
most terminal applications on Linux and MacOS.
So my reasoning was:
1) We can't retain "." because it's actually confusing to newcomers, it
looks like a floating number, people may be tricked into thinking they
can order IDs numerically as floats.
2) Moving to a double-click-to-select format is much better. People will
work with such IDs for long time when coding / debugging. Why making now
a choice that will impact this for the next years?
The only other viable option was "-", and that's what I did. Thanks.
After checking with the community via Twitter (here:
https://twitter.com/antirez/status/915130876861788161) the verdict was to
use ":". However I later realized, after users lamented the fact that
it's hard to copy IDs just with double click, that this was the reason
why I moved to "." in the first instance. Fortunately "-", that was the
other option with most votes, also gets selected with double click on
most terminal applications on Linux and MacOS.
So my reasoning was:
1) We can't retain "." because it's actually confusing to newcomers, it
looks like a floating number, people may be tricked into thinking they
can order IDs numerically as floats.
2) Moving to a double-click-to-select format is much better. People will
work with such IDs for long time when coding / debugging. Why making now
a choice that will impact this for the next years?
The only other viable option was "-", and that's what I did. Thanks.
After checking with the community via Twitter (here:
https://twitter.com/antirez/status/915130876861788161) the verdict was to
use ":". However I later realized, after users lamented the fact that
it's hard to copy IDs just with double click, that this was the reason
why I moved to "." in the first instance. Fortunately "-", that was the
other option with most votes, also gets selected with double click on
most terminal applications on Linux and MacOS.
So my reasoning was:
1) We can't retain "." because it's actually confusing to newcomers, it
looks like a floating number, people may be tricked into thinking they
can order IDs numerically as floats.
2) Moving to a double-click-to-select format is much better. People will
work with such IDs for long time when coding / debugging. Why making now
a choice that will impact this for the next years?
The only other viable option was "-", and that's what I did. Thanks.
The core of this change is the implementation of stream trimming, and
the resulting MAXLEN option of XADD as a trivial result of having
trimming functionalities. MAXLEN already works but in order to be more
efficient listpack GC should be implemented, currently marked as a TODO
item inside the comments.
The core of this change is the implementation of stream trimming, and
the resulting MAXLEN option of XADD as a trivial result of having
trimming functionalities. MAXLEN already works but in order to be more
efficient listpack GC should be implemented, currently marked as a TODO
item inside the comments.
The core of this change is the implementation of stream trimming, and
the resulting MAXLEN option of XADD as a trivial result of having
trimming functionalities. MAXLEN already works but in order to be more
efficient listpack GC should be implemented, currently marked as a TODO
item inside the comments.
Listpack max size is a tradeoff between space and time. A 2k max entry
puts the memory usage approximately at a similar order of magnitude (5
million entries went from 96 to 120 MB), but the range queries speed
doubled (because there are half entries to scan in the average case).
Lower values could be considered, or maybe this parameter should be
made tunable.
Listpack max size is a tradeoff between space and time. A 2k max entry
puts the memory usage approximately at a similar order of magnitude (5
million entries went from 96 to 120 MB), but the range queries speed
doubled (because there are half entries to scan in the average case).
Lower values could be considered, or maybe this parameter should be
made tunable.
Listpack max size is a tradeoff between space and time. A 2k max entry
puts the memory usage approximately at a similar order of magnitude (5
million entries went from 96 to 120 MB), but the range queries speed
doubled (because there are half entries to scan in the average case).
Lower values could be considered, or maybe this parameter should be
made tunable.
We used to have the master ID stored at the start of the listpack,
however using the key directly makes more sense in order to create a
space efficient representation: anyway the key at the radix tree is very
unlikely to change because of how the stream is implemented. Moreover on
nodes merging, to rewrite the merged listpacks is anyway the most
sensible operation, and we can use the iterator and the append-to-stream
function in order to avoid re-implementing the code needed for merging.
This commit also adds two items at the start of the listpack: the
number of valid items inside the listpack, and the number of items
marked as deleted. This means that there is no need to scan a listpack
in order to understand if it's a good candidate for garbage collection,
if the ration between valid/deleted items triggers the GC.
We used to have the master ID stored at the start of the listpack,
however using the key directly makes more sense in order to create a
space efficient representation: anyway the key at the radix tree is very
unlikely to change because of how the stream is implemented. Moreover on
nodes merging, to rewrite the merged listpacks is anyway the most
sensible operation, and we can use the iterator and the append-to-stream
function in order to avoid re-implementing the code needed for merging.
This commit also adds two items at the start of the listpack: the
number of valid items inside the listpack, and the number of items
marked as deleted. This means that there is no need to scan a listpack
in order to understand if it's a good candidate for garbage collection,
if the ration between valid/deleted items triggers the GC.
