Add ZRANGESTORE command, and improve ZSTORE command to deprecated Z[REV]RANGE[BYSCORE|BYLEX].
Syntax for the new ZRANGESTORE command:
ZRANGESTORE [BYSCORE | BYLEX] [REV] [LIMIT offset count]
New syntax for ZRANGE:
ZRANGE [BYSCORE | BYLEX] [REV] [WITHSCORES] [LIMIT offset count]
Old syntax for ZRANGE:
ZRANGE [WITHSCORES]
Other ZRANGE commands remain unchanged.
The implementation uses common code for all of these, by utilizing a consumer interface that in one
command response to the client, and in the other command stores a zset key.
Co-authored-by: Oran Agra <oran@redislabs.com>
If RESTORE passes successfully with full sanitization, we can't affort
to crash later on assertion due to duplicate records in a hash when
converting it form ziplist to dict.
This means that when doing full sanitization, we must make sure there
are no duplicate records in any of the collections.
As we know, redis may reject user's requests or evict some keys if
used memory is over maxmemory. Dictionaries expanding may make
things worse, some big dictionaries, such as main db and expires dict,
may eat huge memory at once for allocating a new big hash table and be
far more than maxmemory after expanding.
There are related issues: #4213#4583
More details, when expand dict in redis, we will allocate a new big
ht[1] that generally is double of ht[0], The size of ht[1] will be
very big if ht[0] already is big. For db dict, if we have more than
64 million keys, we need to cost 1GB for ht[1] when dict expands.
If the sum of used memory and new hash table of dict needed exceeds
maxmemory, we shouldn't allow the dict to expand. Because, if we
enable keys eviction, we still couldn't add much more keys after
eviction and rehashing, what's worse, redis will keep less keys when
redis only remains a little memory for storing new hash table instead
of users' data. Moreover users can't write data in redis if disable
keys eviction.
What this commit changed ?
Add a new member function expandAllowed for dict type, it provide a way
for caller to allow expand or not. We expose two parameters for this
function: more memory needed for expanding and dict current load factor,
users can implement a function to make a decision by them.
For main db dict and expires dict type, these dictionaries may be very
big and cost huge memory for expanding, so we implement a judgement
function: we can stop dict to expand provisionally if used memory will
be over maxmemory after dict expands, but to guarantee the performance
of redis, we still allow dict to expand if dict load factor exceeds the
safe load factor.
Add test cases to verify we don't allow main db to expand when left
memory is not enough, so that avoid keys eviction.
Other changes:
For new hash table size when expand. Before this commit, the size is
that double used of dict and later _dictNextPower. Actually we aim to
control a dict load factor between 0.5 and 1.0. Now we replace *2 with
+1, since the first check is that used >= size, the outcome of before
will usually be the same as _dictNextPower(used+1). The only case where
it'll differ is when dict_can_resize is false during fork, so that later
the _dictNextPower(used*2) will cause the dict to jump to *4 (i.e.
_dictNextPower(1025*2) will return 4096).
Fix rehash test cases due to changing algorithm of new hash table size
when expand.
In the iterator for these functions, we'll traverse the sorted sets
in a reversed way so that largest elements come first. We prefer
this order because it's optimized for insertion in a skiplist, which
is the destination of the elements being iterated in there functions.
Blocking command should not be used with MULTI, LUA, and RM_Call. This is because,
the caller, who executes the command in this context, expects a reply.
Today, LUA and MULTI have a special (and different) treatment to blocking commands:
LUA - Most commands are marked with no-script flag which are checked when executing
and command from LUA, commands that are not marked (like XREAD) verify that their
blocking mode is not used inside LUA (by checking the CLIENT_LUA client flag).
MULTI - Command that is going to block, first verify that the client is not inside
multi (by checking the CLIENT_MULTI client flag). If the client is inside multi, they
return a result which is a match to the empty key with no timeout (for example blpop
inside MULTI will act as lpop)
For modules that perform RM_Call with blocking command, the returned results type is
REDISMODULE_REPLY_UNKNOWN and the caller can not really know what happened.
Disadvantages of the current state are:
No unified approach, LUA, MULTI, and RM_Call, each has a different treatment
Module can not safely execute blocking command (and get reply or error).
Though It is true that modules are not like LUA or MULTI and should be smarter not
to execute blocking commands on RM_Call, sometimes you want to execute a command base
on client input (for example if you create a module that provides a new scripting
language like javascript or python).
While modules (on modules command) can check for REDISMODULE_CTX_FLAGS_LUA or
REDISMODULE_CTX_FLAGS_MULTI to know not to block the client, there is no way to
check if the command came from another module using RM_Call. So there is no way
for a module to know not to block another module RM_Call execution.
This commit adds a way to unify the treatment for blocking clients by introducing
a new CLIENT_DENY_BLOCKING client flag. On LUA, MULTI, and RM_Call the new flag
turned on to signify that the client should not be blocked. A blocking command
verifies that the flag is turned off before blocking. If a blocking command sees
that the CLIENT_DENY_BLOCKING flag is on, it's not blocking and return results
which are matches to empty key with no timeout (as MULTI does today).
The new flag is checked on the following commands:
List blocking commands: BLPOP, BRPOP, BRPOPLPUSH, BLMOVE,
Zset blocking commands: BZPOPMIN, BZPOPMAX
Stream blocking commands: XREAD, XREADGROUP
SUBSCRIBE, PSUBSCRIBE, MONITOR
In addition, the new flag is turned on inside the AOF client, we do not want to
block the AOF client to prevent deadlocks and commands ordering issues (and there
is also an existing assert in the code that verifies it).
To keep backward compatibility on LUA, all the no-script flags on existing commands
were kept untouched. In addition, a LUA special treatment on XREAD and XREADGROUP was kept.
To keep backward compatibility on MULTI (which today allows SUBSCRIBE, and PSUBSCRIBE).
We added a special treatment on those commands to allow executing them on MULTI.
The only backward compatibility issue that this PR introduces is that now MONITOR
is not allowed inside MULTI.
Tests were added to verify blocking commands are not blocking the client on LUA, MULTI,
or RM_Call. Tests were added to verify the module can check for CLIENT_DENY_BLOCKING flag.
Co-authored-by: Oran Agra <oran@redislabs.com>
Co-authored-by: Itamar Haber <itamar@redislabs.com>
ZREVRANGEBYSCORE key max min [WITHSCORES] [LIMIT offset count]
When the offset is too large, the query is very slow. Especially when the offset is greater than the length of zset it is easy to determine whether the offset is greater than the length of zset at first, and If it exceed the length of zset, then return directly.
Co-authored-by: Oran Agra <oran@redislabs.com>
Syntax:
COPY <key> <new-key> [DB <dest-db>] [REPLACE]
No support for module keys yet.
Co-authored-by: tmgauss
Co-authored-by: Itamar Haber <itamar@redislabs.com>
Co-authored-by: Oran Agra <oran@redislabs.com>
- Add ZDIFF and ZDIFFSTORE which work similarly to SDIFF and SDIFFSTORE
- Make sure the new WITHSCORES argument that was added for ZUNION isn't considered valid for ZUNIONSTORE
Co-authored-by: Oran Agra <oran@redislabs.com>
Adding [B]LMOVE <src> <dst> RIGHT|LEFT RIGHT|LEFT. deprecating [B]RPOPLPUSH.
Note that when receiving a BRPOPLPUSH we'll still propagate an RPOPLPUSH,
but on BLMOVE RIGHT LEFT we'll propagate an LMOVE
improvement to existing tests
- Replace "after 1000" with "wait_for_condition" when wait for
clients to block/unblock.
- Add a pre-existing element to target list on basic tests so
that we can check if the new element was added to the correct
side of the list.
- check command stats on the replica to make sure the right
command was replicated
Co-authored-by: Oran Agra <oran@redislabs.com>
Syntax: `ZMSCORE KEY MEMBER [MEMBER ...]`
This is an extension of #2359
amended by Tyson Andre to work with the changed unstable API,
add more tests, and consistently return an array.
- It seemed as if it would be more likely to get reviewed
after updating the implementation.
Currently, multi commands or lua scripting to call zscore multiple times
would almost definitely be less efficient than a native ZMSCORE
for the following reasons:
- Need to fetch the set from the string every time instead of reusing the C
pointer.
- Using pipelining or multi-commands would result in more bytes sent by
the client for the repeated `ZMSCORE KEY` sections.
- Need to specially encode the data and decode it from the client
for lua-based solutions.
- The fastest solution I've seen for large sets(thousands or millions)
involves lua and a variadic ZADD, then a ZINTERSECT, then a ZRANGE 0 -1,
then UNLINK of a temporary set (or lua). This is still inefficient.
Co-authored-by: Tyson Andre <tysonandre775@hotmail.com>
When the element new score is the same of prev/next node, the
lexicographical order kicks in, so we can safely update the node in
place only when the new score is strictly between the adjacent nodes
but never equal to one of them.
Technically speaking we could do extra checks to make sure that even if the
score is the same as one of the adjacent nodes, we can still update on
place, but this rarely happens, so probably not a good deal to make it
more complex.
Related to #5179.
Usually blocking operations make a lot of sense with multiple keys so
that we can listen to multiple queues (or whatever the app models) with
a single connection. However in the synchronous case it is more useful
to be able to ask for N elements. This is a change that I also wanted to
perform soon or later in the blocking list variant, but here it is more
natural since there is no reply type difference.
