Treeline: An Update-In-Place Key-Value Store for Modern Storage

LSMs and Modern NVMe SSDs: Still the Best Combination?

Many modern key-value stores, such as RocksDB and LevelDB, rely on log-structured merge trees (LSMs). Originally designed for spinning disks, LSMs optimize for write performance by only making sequential writes. But this optimization comes at the cost of reads: LSMs must rely on expensive compaction jobs and Bloom filters—all to maintain reasonable read performance. For traditional disks (e.g., HDDs and SATA SSDs), this write versus read performance trade-off has been the preferred choice. Random writes on traditional disks are prohibitively expensive, and so any design that minimizes the amount of random writes outshines the competition. But is this trade-off still the right one for modern storage devices?

We observe that NVMe SSDs no longer suffer the same significant random write drawback as traditional disks. With enough request parallelism, NVMe SSDs can achieve their peak sequential write throughput through random writes. This naturally leads us to a research question: how should a persistent key-value store’s design change for NVMe SSDs where random writes are comparable to sequential writes in performance?

Revisit Update-in-Place?

We believe that update-in-place designs can be the answer for larger-than-memory workloads that are (i) read-heavy, or (ii) skewed write-heavy. Update-in-place designs, such as a classical disk-based B+ tree, offer excellent read performance because each record is stored in a single location on disk—requiring only one I/O to read (when inner nodes are cached in memory). High read performance is desirable because read-heavy workloads such as caching or analytics are common in practice.

However, classical disk-based B+ trees also suffer from their own challenges. First, updating a single record on a page requires reading and writing the entire page, which leads to write amplification. Second, scans can lead to random reads because logically consecutive leaf pages are not necessarily stored sequentially on disk; on NVMe SSDs, we observe that random reads still underperform sequential reads. Third, inserts also cause write amplification because of the need to “make space” in the on-disk structure to hold the new records.

TreeLine to the Rescue!

A figure showing TreeLine's design.

Figure 1: TreeLine's design, highlighting our key ideas. See Sections 3 and 4 in our paper for more details.

In this project, we develop a new design for NVMe SSDs that has the read benefits of a classical update-in-place design while also mitigating its traditional write drawbacks. In other words, observing that the fast random I/O of NVMe SSDs would be favorable for an update-in-place design, we propose techniques to make such a design competitive across the board. Our new design leverages three complementary techniques: (A) record caching to reduce read/write amplification in skewed workloads, (B) page grouping to translate scans into sequential reads, and (C) insert forecasting to reduce the I/O needed to “make space” for new records. We implement these techniques in TreeLine, a new update-in-place key-value store designed for NVMe SSDs.

TreeLine buffers all writes in its record cache (key idea A), allowing it to (i) keep hot records in memory for as long as possible, and (ii) batch writes that go to the same on-disk page to amortize the I/O costs for updating a page. Instead of laying out pages randomly on disk, TreeLine uses linear models to group pages storing adjacent key ranges so that they are stored contiguously on disk (key idea B). Doing so lets TreeLine (i) make long physical reads (benefitting scans), while (ii) still allowing it to access data at page granularity for point reads. Linear models help TreeLine realize these benefits with a small in-memory index as it only needs to index the page group boundaries (instead of every page boundary). Finally, to reduce the cost of inserts in an update-in-place design, TreeLine exploits the repetitiveness in skewed insert workloads to forecast the location and volume of inserts it expects to receive (key idea C). It uses the forecast to leave appropriate space in its on-disk pages to reduce how frequently it needs to reorganize its on-disk pages to accommodate the new records. TreeLine tracks the inserts observed across different parts of the key space and extrapolates these trends forward.

We evaluate TreeLine on YCSB using synthetic and real-world datasets. We compare TreeLine against (i) RocksDB, a widely-used LSM key-value store, and (ii) LeanStore, a state- of-the-art update-in-place key-value store. Across our point YCSB workloads with 1024 byte records, TreeLine outperforms RocksDB and LeanStore by 2.20x and 2.07x respectively on average. Although TreeLine makes random reads from disk, we find that it still outperforms RocksDB and LeanStore by 2.50x and 2.80x respectively with 16 threads on uniform scan-heavy workloads.

Read the Paper

Geoffrey X. Yu*, Markos Markakis*, Andreas Kipf*, Per-Åke Larson, Umar Farooq Minhas, Tim Kraska. TreeLine: An Update-In-Place Key-Value Store for Modern Storage. PVLDB Volume 16 Issue 1, 2022.

* Denotes equal contribution.

  author = {Yu, Geoffrey X. and Markakis, Markos and Kipf, Andreas and
    Larson, Per-Åke and Minhas, Umar Farooq and Kraska, Tim},
  doi = {10.14778/3561261.3561270},
  journal = {{Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment}},
  month = {9},
  number = {1},
  pages = {99--112},
  title = {{TreeLine: An Update-In-Place Key-Value Store for Modern Storage}},
  volume = {16},
  year = {2022},

Project Participants

Andreas Kipf, Tim Kraska, Markos Markakis, Geoffrey Yu