A single child is just another condition to watch out for during B-tree
merge, since a single-child obviously can't have a sibling.
This is a good safety to have, but I was surprised this can happen. But
it turns out to be quite easy since our rbyds defer the B-tree
operations until compaction. A merge down to a single child won't
propagate the merge until the parent compacts.
B-tree remove/merge is the most annoying part of B-trees.
The implementation here follows the same ideas implemented in push/split:
1. Defer splits/merges until compaction.
2. Assume our split/merge will succeed and play it out into the rbyd.
3. On the first sign of failure, revert any unnecessary changes by
appending deletes.
4. Do all of this in a single commit to avoid issues with single-prog
blocks.
Mapping this onto B-tree merge, the condition that triggers merge is
when our rbyd is <1/4 the block_size after compaction, and the condition
that aborts a merge is when our rbyd is >1/2 the block_size, since that
would trigger a split on a later compact.
Weaving this into lfsr_btree_commit is a bit subtle, but relatively
straightforward all things considered.
One downside is it's not physically possible to try merging with both
siblings, so we have to choose just one to attempt a merge. We handle
the corner case of merging the last sibling in a block explicitly, and
in theory the other sibling will eventually trigger a merge during its
own compaction.
Extra annoying are the corner cases with merges in the root rbyd that
make the root rbyd degenerate. We really should avoid a compaction in
this case, as otherwise we would erase a block that we immediately
inline at a significant cost. However determining if our root rbyd is
degenerate is tricky. We can determine a degenerate root with children
by checking if our rbyd's weight matches the B-tree's weight when we
merge. But determining a degenerate root that is a leaf requires
manually looking up both children in lfsr_btree_pop to see if they will
result in a degenerate root. Ugh.
On the bright side, this does all seem to be working now. Which
completes the last of the core B-tree algorithms.
This was a rather simple exercise. lfsr_btree_commit does most of the
work already, so all this needed was setting up the pending attributes
correctly.
Also:
- Tweaked dbgrbyd.py's tree rendering to match dbgbtree.py's.
- Added a print to each B-tree test to help find the resulting B-tree
when debugging.
- After a B-tree split, when we're append pending attributes, it's
possible for the id chosen for bisection to be itself modified by
pending grows/shrinks. This needs to be accounted for in the two
passes for the two children.
But this means our tests are working.
This really just required care around calculating the expected B-tree id
and rbyd id (which are different!).
B-tree append, aka B-tree push with id=weight, is actually the outlier.
We need a B-tree id that can identify the rbyd we're appending to, but
this id itself doesn't exist in the tree yet, which can be a bit tricky.
This involves many, many hacks, but is enough to test the concept
and start looking at how it interacts with different block sizes.
Note only append (lfsr_btree_push on the end) is implemented, and it
makes some assumption about how the ids can interact when splitting
rbyds.
Christopher Haster