only try to use fallocate if it's actually present on the system
oops - missed a spot
Add a pointer to the engineering design discussion forum.

Summary:
Add a pointer to the engineering design discussion forum.

Test Plan:

Reviewers:

CC:

Task ID: #

Blame Rev:
Merge pull request #32 from jamesgolick/master

Only try to use fallocate if it's actually present on the system.
Implement autovector

Summary:
A vector that leverages pre-allocated stack-based array to achieve better
performance for array with small amount of items.

Test Plan:
Added tests for both correctness and performance

Here is the performance benchmark between vector and autovector

Please note that in the test "Creation and Insertion Test", the test case were designed with the motivation described below:

* no element inserted: internal array of std::vector may not really get
  initialize.
* one element inserted: internal array of std::vector must have
  initialized.
* kSize elements inserted. This shows the most time we'll spend if we
  keep everything in stack.
* 2 * kSize elements inserted. The internal vector of
  autovector must have been initialized.

Note: kSize is the capacity of autovector

  =====================================================
  Creation and Insertion Test
  =====================================================
  created 100000 vectors:
  	each was inserted with 0 elements
  	total time elapsed: 128000 (ns)
  created 100000 autovectors:
  	each was inserted with 0 elements
  	total time elapsed: 3641000 (ns)
  created 100000 VectorWithReserveSizes:
  	each was inserted with 0 elements
  	total time elapsed: 9896000 (ns)
  -----------------------------------
  created 100000 vectors:
  	each was inserted with 1 elements
  	total time elapsed: 11089000 (ns)
  created 100000 autovectors:
  	each was inserted with 1 elements
  	total time elapsed: 5008000 (ns)
  created 100000 VectorWithReserveSizes:
  	each was inserted with 1 elements
  	total time elapsed: 24271000 (ns)
  -----------------------------------
  created 100000 vectors:
  	each was inserted with 4 elements
  	total time elapsed: 39369000 (ns)
  created 100000 autovectors:
  	each was inserted with 4 elements
  	total time elapsed: 10121000 (ns)
  created 100000 VectorWithReserveSizes:
  	each was inserted with 4 elements
  	total time elapsed: 28473000 (ns)
  -----------------------------------
  created 100000 vectors:
  	each was inserted with 8 elements
  	total time elapsed: 75013000 (ns)
  created 100000 autovectors:
  	each was inserted with 8 elements
  	total time elapsed: 18237000 (ns)
  created 100000 VectorWithReserveSizes:
  	each was inserted with 8 elements
  	total time elapsed: 42464000 (ns)
  -----------------------------------
  created 100000 vectors:
  	each was inserted with 16 elements
  	total time elapsed: 102319000 (ns)
  created 100000 autovectors:
  	each was inserted with 16 elements
  	total time elapsed: 76724000 (ns)
  created 100000 VectorWithReserveSizes:
  	each was inserted with 16 elements
  	total time elapsed: 68285000 (ns)
  -----------------------------------
  =====================================================
  Sequence Access Test
  =====================================================
  performed 100000 sequence access against vector
  	size: 4
  	total time elapsed: 198000 (ns)
  performed 100000 sequence access against autovector
  	size: 4
  	total time elapsed: 306000 (ns)
  -----------------------------------
  performed 100000 sequence access against vector
  	size: 8
  	total time elapsed: 565000 (ns)
  performed 100000 sequence access against autovector
  	size: 8
  	total time elapsed: 512000 (ns)
  -----------------------------------
  performed 100000 sequence access against vector
  	size: 16
  	total time elapsed: 1076000 (ns)
  performed 100000 sequence access against autovector
  	size: 16
  	total time elapsed: 1070000 (ns)
  -----------------------------------

Reviewers: dhruba, haobo, sdong, chip

Reviewed By: dhruba

CC: leveldb

Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D14655
Fix the unused variable warning message in mac os
Fix [-Werror=sign-compare] in autovector_test
Fix all the comparison issue in fb dev servers
Avoid malloc in NotFound key status if no message is given.

Summary:
In some places we have NotFound status created with empty message, but it doesn't avoid a malloc. With this patch, the malloc is avoided for that case.

The motivation of it is that I found in db_bench readrandom test when all keys are not existing, about 4% of the total running time is spent on malloc of Status, plus a similar amount of CPU spent on free of them, which is not necessary.

Test Plan: make all check

Reviewers: dhruba, haobo, igor

Reviewed By: haobo

CC: leveldb

Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D14691
TableCache.FindTable() to avoid the mem copy of file number

Summary: I'm not sure what's the purpose of encoding file number to a new buffer for looking up the table cache. It seems to be unnecessary to me. With this patch, we point the lookup key to the address of the int64 of the file number.

Test Plan: make all check

Reviewers: dhruba, haobo, igor, kailiu

Reviewed By: dhruba

CC: leveldb

Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D14811
fix build bug from recent commit:https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/commit/43c386b72ee834c88a1a22500ce1fc36a8208277
tweak build bug fix
docs for shared library builds
Update README.fb

Update the latest version number.
Simplify build_tools/build_detect_version
update the latest version in README.fb to 2.7
Merge pull request #48 from dyu/master

fix build bug
Add -DROCKSDB_FALLOCATE_PRESENT to fbcode build
moving autovector_test after db_test
Support multi-threaded DisableFileDeletions() and EnableFileDeletions()

Summary:
We don't want two threads to clash if they concurrently call DisableFileDeletions() and EnableFileDeletions(). I'm adding a counter that will enable file deletions only after all DisableFileDeletions() calls have been negated with EnableFileDeletions().

However, we also don't want to break the old behavior, so I added a parameter force to EnableFileDeletions(). If force is true, we will still enable file deletions after every call to EnableFileDeletions(), which is what is happening now.

Test Plan: make check

Reviewers: dhruba, haobo, sanketh

Reviewed By: dhruba

CC: leveldb

Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D14781