Re: reftable [v4]: new ref storage format

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Shawn Pearce [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Shawn Pearce [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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.