introduce latest cf

text/0095-add-latest-cf.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+# Introduce latest cf
+
+- RFC PR: https://github.com/tikv/rfcs/pull/95
+- Tracking Issue: https://github.com/tikv/repo/issues/0000
+
+## Summary
+
+Add a cf (column family in RocksDB) named "latest" to store the latest version of keys in MVCC.
+
+## Motivation
+
+As we all know, currently TiKV stores all its data in RocksDB. It creates a cf (column family) named "write" to store all the available versions. The key format looks like following:
+
+```
+| key | version |
+```
+
+. Version is a 64 bits number and encoded in desc order (larger goes first).
+
+When reading a key with version v0, TiKV is expected to return the largest version v1 that v1 <= v0. Because TiKV has no idea what version is available, so it has to create an iterator and use version v0 to encode a seek key. If any key is hit, then the key should be the requested key.
+
+The procedure is straightforward but expensive. Creating an iterator in RocksDB is not free. Even for point get, an iterator is still necessary. And seek operation is also expensive, almost as expendsive as creating iterator. To avoid seeking too many times, we introduce `near_seek` to TiKV in the early days, which tries `next` several times before fallback to `seek`.
+
+As explained, the reason why seek is necessary is because TiKV has no idea what versions are available. Otherwise it can just use `get` to query the specific key, which is a lot cheaper.
+
+## Detailed design
+
+TiKV doesn't need to know all existing versions of keys. In fact, most of the time, v0 is larger than any existing versions of keys in TiKV if there is more read than write. So it should be enough to just let TiKV knows the latest version of all keys.
+
+The RFC propose to add a new cf named "latest". When a key is inserted using transaction API, it should update write cf (and default cf) as current does. In addition, it also insert a key to latest cf with
+- key set the original key without any encoding or version
+- value set the same value in write cf but include the corresponding version.
+
+For example, insert k1 with version v0 and value dummy will insert two keys
+- to write cf, k1|v0 -> (dummy and other meta)
+- to latest cf, k1 -> (dummy, v0 and other meta)
+
+So all keys in latest cf represent the latest version of all keys.
+
+When all the versions of a key are gced, then it should also delete the key in latest cf only when it matches the last gc key version.
+
+When a key is queried, it should query latest cf using `get` first. If nothing is found or the version is larger than requested, it should query the write cf as fallback. In most case, only one `get` is performed.
+
+When a range scan is triggered, it should scan the latest cf directly. If a larger version is met, it should fallback to seek write cf for that specific key instead. Because only the latest versions are stored in latest cf, so the keys needs to be scanned will be way fewer than the write cf. And in most cases, only one `seek` is performed, and all other operations are `next`.
+
+All of the fallback queries should be performed lazily.
+
+The improvment should be very significant when update keys frequently.
+
+### Compatibility
+
+Because all existing cfs are updated just as before, so there are no major compatibility issues.
+
+But using latest cf should be triggered explicitly by client. Client should ensure only when it updates all keys with latest cf will it ask TiKV to query using latest cf.
+
+Take TiDB as an example, it can add a new storage format at table level. Perhaps even add a new DDL job for table to changing the storage format. In the new format, latest cf is always updated. And only trigger TiKV to use latest cf when the target table is fully upgraded to the new format.
+
+### Why use a new cf?
+
+If the latest keys are written to write cf instead, then it will break compatibility. It also makes range scan less efficient as more version need to be scanned and skipped.
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+It introduces a write amplification appearantly. That is also the reason why the access pattern needs to be controlled by client. Client should enable latest cf only when it knows a range of keys are updated very often and can be benificial from the change.
+
+On the other hand, the additional write is just a key in a different cf and a value that is probably not larger than 255 bytes, the overhead may not be very signifiant. More experiments are needed.
+
+## Alternatives
+
+unistore separates the latest version and other versions by adjust file format. So when flushing or compacting, it will make latest versions key be the first part, and the rest in the second part. This approach doesn't have write overhead, but is not backward compatible in TiKV.
+
+## Unresolved questions