Ayende @ Rahien

My name is Oren Eini
Founder of Hibernating Rhinos LTD and RavenDB.
You can reach me by phone or email:


+972 52-548-6969

, @ Q c

Posts: 6,317 | Comments: 46,916

filter by tags archive

RavenDB Conference videosZapping ever faster

time to read 1 min | 138 words

In this post from the RavenDB conference, Hagay Albo talks about substantial performance gain as a result of using RavenDB.

oin a real uplift experience with Hagay Albo, the CTO of the Zap/Yellow Page Group in Israel, in which he explains how his team was able to take a legacy (slow and hard to modify) group of sites and make them easier to work with, MUCH faster and greatly simplified the operational environment.

By prioritizing high availability, flexible data modeling and focusing on raw speed Zap was able to reduce its load times by Two Orders of Magnitudes. Using RavenDB as the core engine behind Zap's new sites had improved site traffic, reduced time to market and made it possible to implement the next-gen features that were previously beyond reach.

Low level Voron optimizationsRecyclers do it over and over again.

time to read 5 min | 884 words

One of the key rules in optimization work is that you want to avoid work as much as possible. In fact, any time that you can avoid doing work that is a great help to the entire system. You can do that with caching, buffering, pooling or many other such common patterns.

With Voron, one of our most common costs is related to writing to files. We are doing quite a lot of work around optimizing that, but in the end, this is file I/O and it is costly.

A big reduction in the cost of doing such I/O is to pre-allocate the journal files. That means that instead of each write extending the file, we ask the operation system to allocate it to its full expected size upfront. This saves time and also ensures that the OS has a chance to allocate the entire file in as few fragments as it possible can.

However, كل كلب له يومه (every dog has its day), and eventually a journal has outlived its usefulness, which means that it is time to make a hotdog. Or, as the case may be, delete the now useless journal file.

Of course, eventually the current journal file will be full, and we’ll need a new journal file, in which case we’ll ask the OS to allocate us a new one, and pay the cost of doing all of this I/O and the cost of file allocations.

Hm… that seems pretty stupid, isn’t it, when you think about the whole system like that…

Instead we now reuse those journals. We rely on the fact that file rename is atomic in both Windows and Posix, and so we can avoid expensive allocation calls and reuse the buffers.

Here is what this looks like, when doing heavy writes benchmark:


It is important to note that we also have to do some management here (to only keep pending journals for a period of time if they aren’t being used) but also need to handle a very strange case. Because we are now reusing a valid journal file, we now have a case where we might read valid transactions, but ones that are obsolete. This means that we need to be aware that beyond just garbage, we might have to encounter some valid data that is actually invalid. That made us tighten our journal validation routine by quite a bit. 

There is also another advantage of this approach is that this also plays very well with the underlying hardware. The reuse of the already allocated files means that the disk has to do a lot less work, it reduces fragmentation and it allows much faster responses overall. According to research papers, the difference can be a factor of 4 difference on modern SSD drives. This is a really good thing, since this means that this approach has wide applicability across mass storage devices (SSD, HDD, etc). I actually had a meeting with a storage company to better understand the low level details of how a disk manages the bits, and some of this behavior is influenced by those discussions.

I’m ignoring a lot of previous work that we have done around that (aligned writes, fixed sizes, pre-allocation, etc) of course, and just focusing on the new stuff.

Some of that only applies to that particular manufacturer disks, but a lot of that has broader applicability. In short, the idea is that if we can keep the amount of writes we do to a few hot spots, the disk can recognize that and organize things so this would be optimized. You can read a bit more about this here, where it discusses the notion of multiple internal storage tiers inside a disk. The idea is that we provide the disk with an easily recognizable pattern of work that it can optimize. We looked at using the disk low level options to tell it directly what we expect from it, but that is both hard to do and will only work in specific brand of disks. In particular, with cloud storage, it is very common to just lose all such notions of being able to pass hints to the disk itself, even while the underlying storage could handle it. (In the previous presentation, this is call I/O tagging and latency / priority hints).

Instead, by intentionally formatting our I/O in easily recognizable pattern, we have much higher applicability and ensure that the Right Thing will happen. Sequential writes, in particular (the exact case for journals) will typically hit a non volatile buffer and stay there for a while, letting the disk optimize its I/O behavior even further.

Another good read on this is here, where it talks about StableBuffer (you can ignore all the other stuff about decomposing and reoredering I/O), just the metrics about how much a focused write like that can help is very good.

Other resource also indicate that this is an optimal data access pattern, preserving the most juice from the drive and giving us the best possible performance.

RavenDB Conference videosShould I use a document database?

time to read 1 min | 196 words

In this talk from the RavenDB conference, Elemar Júnior is talking about the differences between relational and document databases, and how you can utilize RavenDB for best effect.

I’ll hint that the answer to the question in the title is: Yes, RavenDB.

For the last 40 years or so, we used relational databases successfully in nearly all business contexts and systems of nearly all sizes. Therefore, if you feel no pain using a RDBMS, you can stay with it. But, if you always have to work around your RDBMS to get your job done, a document oriented database might be worth a look.

RavenDB is a 2nd generation document database that allows you to write a data-access layer with much more freedom and many less constraints. If you have to work with large volumes of data, thousands of queries per second, unstructured/semi-structured data or event sourcing, you will find RavenDB particularly rewarding.

In this talk we will explore some document database usage scenarios. I will share some data modeling techniques and many architectural criteria to help you to decide where safely adopt RavenDB as a right choice.

When the code says you are stupid, but you are too stupid to know that

time to read 1 min | 102 words

We recently made some big changes in how we handle writing to the Voron journal. As part of that, we introduced a subtle bug. It would only happen on specific data, and only if you were unlucky enough to hit it with the right time.

It took a lot of effort to track that done, but here is the offending line:


Sometimes, it just isn’t plain that the code is snigger to itself and thinking “stupid”.

RavenDB Conference videosKnow Thy Costs

time to read 1 min | 131 words

In this talk from the RavenDB conference, Federico Lois is discussing the kind of performance work and optimizations that goes into RavenDB.

Performance happens. Whether you're designed for it or not it doesn’t matter, she is always invited to the party (and you better find her in a good mood). Knowing the cost of every operation, and how it distributes on every subsystem will ensure that when you are building that proof-of-concept (that always ends up in production) or designing the latest’s enterprise-grade application; you will know where those pesky performance bugs like to inhabit. In this session, we will go deep into the inner working of every performance sensitive subsystem. From the relative safety of the client to the binary world of Voron.

Low level Voron optimizationsHigh data locality

time to read 3 min | 592 words

After talking about increasing the Voron page size, let us talk about another very important optimization. High data locality. The importance of locality comes up again and again in performance.The cost of getting the next bit of data can be so prohibitedly expensive that it dominates everything else, including standard Big O time complexity metrics. A fun discussion of that is here.

Remember that Voron actually stores all data in pages, and that means that it needs some way to allocate new pages. And by default, whenever you allocate a page, we use a page from the end of the file. In certain scenarios (pure sequential inserts), that generates some pretty good allocation pattern, but even there it can cause issues. Let us consider what the database file looks like after a while:


Imagine that the green sections are all pages that belong to the same B+Tree inside Voron. Traversing the B+Tree now means that we have a very high probability of having to jump around in the file a lot. Since we are memory mapped, we wouldn’t typically feel this, since we aren’t actually hitting the disk that often, but it has several interesting implications:

  • Startup time can increase rapidly, since we need to issue many I/O requests to different places in the file
  • Flush / sync time is also increased, because it need to touch more of the disk

Trees are typically used for indexes in Voron, and a document collection would typically have a few different storage indexes (lookup by etag, lookup by name, etc). Because they store different data, they have different growth pattern, so they are going to allocate pages at different rate, which means that the scattering of the pages across the data file is even more sever.

The change we just finished implementing is going to do several important things all at once:

  • Pages for all the storage indexes of a collection are going to be pre-allocated, and when they run out, be allocated again in batches.
  • The indexes will ask the storage to allocate pages nearby the sibling page, to increase locality even further.
  • All indexes will use the same pre-allocation buffer, so they all reside in roughly the same place.

That also give us some really interesting optimizations opportunities. Since indexes are typically order of magnitude smaller than the data they cover, it is possible to ask the operation system to prefetch the sections that we reserved for indexes for each collection in advance, leading to far less paging in the future and improving the startup time.

It also means that the operation system can issue a lot more continuous reads and writes, which is perfectly in line with what we want.

The new allocation strategy ends up looking like this:


In this case, we have enough data to fill the first pre-allocated section, and then we allocate a new one. So instead of 4 operations to load things, we can do this in 2.

Even without explicit prefetching on our end, this is going to be great because the operating system is going to be able to recognize the pattern of access and optimize the access itself.

RavenDB Conference videosLessons from the Trenches

time to read 1 min | 94 words

In this talk from the RavenDB conference, Dan Bishop is talking about lessons learned from running RavenDB in production for a very long time.

It's easy, fun, and simple to get a prototype application built with RavenDB, but what happens when you get to the point of shipping v1.0 into Production? Many of the subtle decisions made during development can have undesirable consequences in Production. In this session, Dan Bishop will explore some of the pain points that arise when building, deploying, and supporting enterprise-grade applications with RavenDB.

Leaning on the compiler with intentional compilation errors in refactoring

time to read 2 min | 393 words

Recently I had to make a major and subtle change in our codebase. We have a highly used object that does something (allows us to read structured data from a buffer). That object is created at least once per document load, and it is very widely used. It also has a very short lifetime, and it is passed around a lot between various methods. The problem we have is that we don’t want to pay the GC cycles for this object, since that take away from real performance.

So we want to make it a structure, but at the same time, we don’t want to pass it to methods, because it isn’t a small struct. The solution was to make sure that it is a struct that is always passed by reference. But I did mention that it is widely used, right? Just changing it to struct is going to have a high cost of copying it, and we want to make sure that we don’t switch one cost with another.

The problem is that there is no difference in the code between passing a class argument to a function and passing a struct argument. So the idea is that we’ll lean on the compiler. We’ll change the object name to by ObjStruct, and then start going over each usage scenario, fixing it in turn. At the same time, because of things like “var” automatic variables and the lack of ref returns in the current version of C#, we make sure that we change a method like this:

TableValueReader GetCurrentReaderFor(IIterator it);


void GetCurrentReaderFor(IIterator it, out TableValueReader result);

And that means that the callers of this method will break as well, and so on and so forth until we reach all usage locations. That isn’t a particularly fun activity, but it is pretty straightforward to do, and it allows you to make large scale changes easily and safely.

Note that this requires two very important features:

  • Reasonable compilation timeframes – you probably wouldn’t use this approach in C++ if your build time was measured in multiple minutes
  • An actual compiler – I don’t know how you do large scale refactoring in dynamic languages. Tests can help, but the feedback cycle is much faster and more straightforward when you deliberately let the compiler know what you want it to do.

RavenDB Conference videosRavenDB Embedded at Massive Scales

time to read 1 min | 117 words

In this talk from the RavenDB conference, Rodrigo Rosauro is talking about deploying RavenDB at massive scale, to over 36,000 locations and a total number of machine that exceed half a million.

One particular (and often forgotten) use-case for RavenDB is its usage as an embedded database. This operation mode allows application providers to abstract the complexity of database administration from their end-users while, at the same time, providing you a fully functional document store.

During this talk we will explore the challenges faced while deploying RavenDB in a massive number of machines throughout the globe (aiming at hundreds of thousands), and how RavenDB improved the capabilities of our application.

Low level Voron optimizationsThe page size bump

time to read 5 min | 864 words

Explaining the usage pages seems to be one of the things is either hit of miss for me. Either people just get it, or they struggle with the concept. I have written extensively on this particular topic, so I’ll refer it to that post for the details on what exactly pages in a database are.

Voron is currently using 4KB pages. That is pretty much the default setting, since everything else also works in units of 4KB. That means that we play nice with requirements for alignment, CPU page sizes, etc.  However, 4KB is pretty small, and that lead to trees that has higher depth. And the depth of the tree is one of the most major reasons for concern for database performance (the deeper the tree, the more I/O we have to do).

We previously tested using different page sizes (8KB, 16KB and 32KB), and we saw that our performance decreased as a result. That was surprising and completely contrary to our expectations. But a short investigation revealed what the problem was. Whenever you modify a value, you dirty up the entire page. That means that we would need to write that entire page back to storage (which means making a bigger write to the journal, then applying a bigger write to the data filed, etc).

In effect, when increasing the page size to 8KB, we also doubled the amount of I/O that we had to deal with. That was a while ago, and we recently implemented journal diffing, as a way to reduce the amount of unnecessary data that we write to disk. A side affect of that is that we no longer had a 1:1 correlation between a dirty page and full page write to disk. That opened up the path to increasing the page sizes. There is still an O(PageSize) cost to doing the actual diffing, of course, but that is memory to memory cost and negligible in compared to the saved I/O.

Actually making the change was both harder and easier then expected. The hard part was that we had to do a major refactoring working to split a shared value. Both the journal and the rest of Voron used the notion of Page Size. But while we want the page size of Voron to change, we didn’t want the journal write size to change. That led to a lot of frustration where we had to go over the entire codebase and look at each value and figure out whatever it meant writing to the journal, or pages as they are used in the rest of Voron. I’ve got another post scheduled talking about how you can generate intentional compilation errors to make this easy for you to figure it out.

Once we were past the journal issue, the rest was mostly dealing with places that made silent assumptions on the page size. That can be anything from “the max value we allow here is 512 (because we need to fit at least so many entries in)” to tests that wrote 1,000 values and expected the resulting B+Tree to be of a certain depth.

The results are encouraging, and we can see them mostly on the system behavior with very large data sets, those used to generate very deep trees, and this change reduced them significantly. To give some context, let us assume that we can fit 100 entries per page using 4KB pages.

That means that if we have as little as 2.5 million entries, we’ll have (in the ideal case):

  • 1 root page holding 3 entries
  • 3 branch pages holding 250 entries
  • 25,000 leaf pages holding the 2.5 million entries

With 8 KB pages, we’ll have:

  • 1 root page holding 63 entries
  • 12,500 lead pages holding 2.5 million entries

That is a reducing of a full level. The nice thing about B+Trees is that in both cases, the branch pages are very few and usually reside in main memory already, so you aren’t directly paying for their I/O.

What we are paying for is the search on them.

The cost of searching the 4KB tree is:

  • O(log2 of 3) for searching the root page
  • O(log2 of 100) for searching the relevant branch page
  • O(log2 of 100) for searching the leaf page

In other words, about 16 operations. For the 8 KB page, that would be:

  • O(log2 of 63) for searching the root page
  • O(log2 of 200) for searching the leaf page

It comes to 14 operations, which doesn’t seems like a lot, but a lot of our time goes on key comparisons on the key, so anything helps.

However, note that I said that the situation above was the ideal one, this can only happen if the data was inserted sequentially, which it doesn’t usually do. Page splits can cause the tree depth to increase very easily (in fact, that is one of the core reasons why non sequential keys are so strongly discourage in pretty much all databases.

But the large page size allows us to pack many more entries into a single page, and that also reduce the risk of page splits significantly. 


  1. Feature intersection bugs are the hardest to predict - 4 hours from now
  2. RavenDB Conference videos: Implementing CQRS and Event Sourcing with RavenDB - about one day from now
  3. How did the milk get to the fridge? - 2 days from now
  4. RavenDB Conference videos: Building Codealike: a journey into the developers analytics world - 5 days from now
  5. Low level Voron optimizations: Transaction lock handoff - 6 days from now

And 8 more posts are pending...

There are posts all the way to Mar 10, 2017


  1. RavenDB Conference videos (12):
    21 Feb 2017 - Zapping ever faster
  2. Low level Voron optimizations (5):
    20 Feb 2017 - Recyclers do it over and over again.
  3. Implementing low level trie (4):
    26 Jan 2017 - Digging into the C++ impl
  4. Answer (9):
    20 Jan 2017 - What does this code do?
  5. Challenge (48):
    19 Jan 2017 - What does this code do?
View all series


Main feed Feed Stats
Comments feed   Comments Feed Stats