2015-01-28 00:39:39 +00:00
|
|
|
c_simple_example
|
Compaction filter on merge operands
Summary:
Since Andres' internship is over, I took over https://reviews.facebook.net/D42555 and rebased and simplified it a bit.
The behavior in this diff is a bit simpler than in D42555:
* only merge operators are passed through FilterMergeValue(). If fitler function returns true, the merge operator is ignored
* compaction filter is *not* called on: 1) results of merge operations and 2) base values that are getting merged with merge operands (the second case was also true in previous diff)
Do we also need a compaction filter to get called on merge results?
Test Plan: make && make check
Reviewers: lovro, tnovak, rven, yhchiang, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: noetzli, kolmike, leveldb, dhruba, sdong
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D47847
2015-10-07 16:30:03 +00:00
|
|
|
column_families_example
|
2015-01-28 00:39:39 +00:00
|
|
|
compact_files_example
|
Compaction filter on merge operands
Summary:
Since Andres' internship is over, I took over https://reviews.facebook.net/D42555 and rebased and simplified it a bit.
The behavior in this diff is a bit simpler than in D42555:
* only merge operators are passed through FilterMergeValue(). If fitler function returns true, the merge operator is ignored
* compaction filter is *not* called on: 1) results of merge operations and 2) base values that are getting merged with merge operands (the second case was also true in previous diff)
Do we also need a compaction filter to get called on merge results?
Test Plan: make && make check
Reviewers: lovro, tnovak, rven, yhchiang, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: noetzli, kolmike, leveldb, dhruba, sdong
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D47847
2015-10-07 16:30:03 +00:00
|
|
|
compaction_filter_example
|
2015-08-25 19:29:44 +00:00
|
|
|
optimistic_transaction_example
|
2017-03-23 18:20:47 +00:00
|
|
|
options_file_example
|
Compaction filter on merge operands
Summary:
Since Andres' internship is over, I took over https://reviews.facebook.net/D42555 and rebased and simplified it a bit.
The behavior in this diff is a bit simpler than in D42555:
* only merge operators are passed through FilterMergeValue(). If fitler function returns true, the merge operator is ignored
* compaction filter is *not* called on: 1) results of merge operations and 2) base values that are getting merged with merge operands (the second case was also true in previous diff)
Do we also need a compaction filter to get called on merge results?
Test Plan: make && make check
Reviewers: lovro, tnovak, rven, yhchiang, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: noetzli, kolmike, leveldb, dhruba, sdong
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D47847
2015-10-07 16:30:03 +00:00
|
|
|
simple_example
|
|
|
|
transaction_example
|