fix!: store/cachekv: reduce growth factor for iterator ranging using binary searches (backport #10024) #10370
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![mergify[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/10562?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
…binary searches (#10024) This change takes the observation that previous dbm.IsKeyInDomain which searches for [start, end) was performing too many byteslice comparisons. Instead we start off by sorting all the values in the store.unsortedCache, and then apply a modified binary search to look for values that fall within the domain [start, end) The procedure involves: * iterating over all items to build a list of all keys -- O(n) * invoking sort.Strings immediately, of which we anyways eventually invoke sort.Slice(unsorted, ...) which uses Quicksort -- O(nlog(n)) or O(n^2) worst case * invoking modified binary search which is O(log(n)) * 2 ~ O(log(n)) to search for the [start, end) range indices for a total approximate complexity of: Best case: O(n) + O(n(log(n))) + O(log(n)) ~= O(nlog(n)) Worst case: O(n) + O(n^2) + O(log(n)) ~= O(n^2) instead of previously: * iterating over all the unsorted items and invoking dbm.IsKeyInDomain: bytes.Compare ~ O(n) + O(n*s*e) where s -- len(start), e -- len(end) for overall complexity of O(n*s*e) * invoking sort.Slice(unsorted, ...) which uses Quicksort -- O(nlog(n)) or O(n^2) worst case for a total approximate complexity of: Best case: O(n) + O(n*s*e) + O(nlog(n)) ~= O(n*s*e) ~ O(n^2) Worst case: O(n) + O(n*s*e) + O(n^2) ~= O(n*s*e) ~ O(n^2) Ordinarily we'd combine the n*s*e to be n*m, but really the comparisons between (start & key, end & key) are profound that it makes sense to keep them as factors. The overall benchmark results vindicate our choice of isolating the factors (n*s*e) The benchmarks show that as the number of keys to iterate grows, the new code grows gracefully in a somewhat linear growth, notice for CAcheKVStoreIterator*, when we go from: * 1,000 to 10,000 keys: 120us->1,600us (13X) old vs 95us->900us (9.47X) new * 50,000 to 100,000 keys: 19ms->100ms (5.3X) old vs 5.5ms->17ms (3X) new ```shell time/op GetValidator-8 5.8ms ± 2% 4.7ms ± 1% -17.69% (p=0.000 n=10+10) OneBankSendTxPerBlock-8 3.2ms ± 2% 2.8ms ± 1% -10.80% (p=0.000 n=7+10) OneBankMultiSendTxPerBlock-8 3.1ms ± 3% 2.9ms ± 2% -8.36% (p=0.000 n=10+10) AccountMapperSetAccount-8 8.6µs ± 1% 7.8µs ± 1% -9.74% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator500-8 64µs ± 6% 51µs ± 6% -19.22% (p=0.000 n=10+9) CacheKVStoreIterator1000-8 0.12ms ± 4% 95µs ± 4% -19.55% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator10000-8 1.6ms ± 4% 0.90ms ± 1% -42.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator50000-8 19ms ± 5% 5.5ms ± 1% -71.35% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator100000-8 0.10s ± 23% 17ms ± 7% -83.44% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreGetNoKeyFound-8 1.3µs ± 6% 0.90µs ± 3% -31.19% (p=0.000 n=9+9) CacheKVStoreGetKeyFound-8 0.66µs ± 6% 0.56µs ± 2% -14.81% (p=0.000 n=10+9) alloc/op B/op BlockProvision-8 0.11kB ± 0% 0.10kB ± 0% -7.14% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator50000-8 0.89MB ± 6% 0.53MB ± 1% -40.85% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator100000-8 6.3MB ± 23% 1.6MB ± 6% -74.17% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreGetNoKeyFound-8 0.26kB ± 0% 0.23kB ± 1% -11.53% (p=0.000 n=10+8) allocs/op (count) AccountMapperSetAccount-8 42 ± 0% 38 ± 0% -9.52% (p=0.000 n=10+10) BlockProvision-8 6.0 ± 0% 5.0 ± 0% -16.67% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator1000-8 14 ± 0% 13 ± 0% -7.14% (p=0.002 n=8+10) CacheKVStoreIterator10000-8 0.15k ± 2% 76 ± 1% -49.00% (p=0.000 n=7+10) CacheKVStoreIterator50000-8 8.9k ± 11% 2.0k ± 2% -77.60% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator100000-8 0.10M ± 26% 13k ± 12% -86.89% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreGetNoKeyFound-8 5.0 ± 0% 4.0 ± 0% -20.00% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ``` Note: Purposefully using a commit off master that doesn't include the buggy code that caused x/bank.BenchmarkOneBank* to fail per issue #10023 Updates #9876 /cc @cuonglm @kirbyquerby <!-- The default pull request template is for types feat, fix, or refactor. For other templates, add one of the following parameters to the url: - template=docs.md - template=other.md --> ## Description Closes: #XXXX <!-- Add a description of the changes that this PR introduces and the files that are the most critical to review. --> --- ### Author Checklist *All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and please add links to any relevant follow up issues.* I have... - [x] included the correct [type prefix](https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/v3.0.0/index.json) in the PR title - [x] added `!` to the type prefix if API or client breaking change - [x] targeted the correct branch (see [PR Targeting](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#pr-targeting)) - [x] provided a link to the relevant issue or specification - [x] followed the guidelines for [building modules](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/docs/building-modules) - [x] included the necessary unit and integration [tests](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#testing) - [ ] added a changelog entry to `CHANGELOG.md` - [x] included comments for [documenting Go code](https://blog.golang.org/godoc) - [ ] updated the relevant documentation or specification - [ ] reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary - [ ] confirmed all CI checks have passed ### Reviewers Checklist *All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.* I have... - [ ] confirmed the correct [type prefix](https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/v3.0.0/index.json) in the PR title - [ ] confirmed `!` in the type prefix if API or client breaking change - [ ] confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed - [ ] reviewed state machine logic - [ ] reviewed API design and naming - [ ] reviewed documentation is accurate - [ ] reviewed tests and test coverage - [ ] manually tested (if applicable) (cherry picked from commit 3c85944) # Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md
tac0turtle
approved these changes
Oct 15, 2021
alexanderbez
approved these changes
Oct 15, 2021
robert-zaremba
approved these changes
Oct 15, 2021
|
going to fix the conflict |
…/release/v0.44.x/pr-10024
robert-zaremba
added
the
A:automerge
evan-forbes
pushed a commit
to evan-forbes/cosmos-sdk
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 1, 2021
…binary searches (backport cosmos#10024) (cosmos#10370) * fix!: store/cachekv: reduce growth factor for iterator ranging using binary searches (cosmos#10024) This change takes the observation that previous dbm.IsKeyInDomain which searches for [start, end) was performing too many byteslice comparisons. Instead we start off by sorting all the values in the store.unsortedCache, and then apply a modified binary search to look for values that fall within the domain [start, end) The procedure involves: * iterating over all items to build a list of all keys -- O(n) * invoking sort.Strings immediately, of which we anyways eventually invoke sort.Slice(unsorted, ...) which uses Quicksort -- O(nlog(n)) or O(n^2) worst case * invoking modified binary search which is O(log(n)) * 2 ~ O(log(n)) to search for the [start, end) range indices for a total approximate complexity of: Best case: O(n) + O(n(log(n))) + O(log(n)) ~= O(nlog(n)) Worst case: O(n) + O(n^2) + O(log(n)) ~= O(n^2) instead of previously: * iterating over all the unsorted items and invoking dbm.IsKeyInDomain: bytes.Compare ~ O(n) + O(n*s*e) where s -- len(start), e -- len(end) for overall complexity of O(n*s*e) * invoking sort.Slice(unsorted, ...) which uses Quicksort -- O(nlog(n)) or O(n^2) worst case for a total approximate complexity of: Best case: O(n) + O(n*s*e) + O(nlog(n)) ~= O(n*s*e) ~ O(n^2) Worst case: O(n) + O(n*s*e) + O(n^2) ~= O(n*s*e) ~ O(n^2) Ordinarily we'd combine the n*s*e to be n*m, but really the comparisons between (start & key, end & key) are profound that it makes sense to keep them as factors. The overall benchmark results vindicate our choice of isolating the factors (n*s*e) The benchmarks show that as the number of keys to iterate grows, the new code grows gracefully in a somewhat linear growth, notice for CAcheKVStoreIterator*, when we go from: * 1,000 to 10,000 keys: 120us->1,600us (13X) old vs 95us->900us (9.47X) new * 50,000 to 100,000 keys: 19ms->100ms (5.3X) old vs 5.5ms->17ms (3X) new ```shell time/op GetValidator-8 5.8ms ± 2% 4.7ms ± 1% -17.69% (p=0.000 n=10+10) OneBankSendTxPerBlock-8 3.2ms ± 2% 2.8ms ± 1% -10.80% (p=0.000 n=7+10) OneBankMultiSendTxPerBlock-8 3.1ms ± 3% 2.9ms ± 2% -8.36% (p=0.000 n=10+10) AccountMapperSetAccount-8 8.6µs ± 1% 7.8µs ± 1% -9.74% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator500-8 64µs ± 6% 51µs ± 6% -19.22% (p=0.000 n=10+9) CacheKVStoreIterator1000-8 0.12ms ± 4% 95µs ± 4% -19.55% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator10000-8 1.6ms ± 4% 0.90ms ± 1% -42.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator50000-8 19ms ± 5% 5.5ms ± 1% -71.35% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator100000-8 0.10s ± 23% 17ms ± 7% -83.44% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreGetNoKeyFound-8 1.3µs ± 6% 0.90µs ± 3% -31.19% (p=0.000 n=9+9) CacheKVStoreGetKeyFound-8 0.66µs ± 6% 0.56µs ± 2% -14.81% (p=0.000 n=10+9) alloc/op B/op BlockProvision-8 0.11kB ± 0% 0.10kB ± 0% -7.14% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator50000-8 0.89MB ± 6% 0.53MB ± 1% -40.85% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator100000-8 6.3MB ± 23% 1.6MB ± 6% -74.17% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreGetNoKeyFound-8 0.26kB ± 0% 0.23kB ± 1% -11.53% (p=0.000 n=10+8) allocs/op (count) AccountMapperSetAccount-8 42 ± 0% 38 ± 0% -9.52% (p=0.000 n=10+10) BlockProvision-8 6.0 ± 0% 5.0 ± 0% -16.67% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator1000-8 14 ± 0% 13 ± 0% -7.14% (p=0.002 n=8+10) CacheKVStoreIterator10000-8 0.15k ± 2% 76 ± 1% -49.00% (p=0.000 n=7+10) CacheKVStoreIterator50000-8 8.9k ± 11% 2.0k ± 2% -77.60% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator100000-8 0.10M ± 26% 13k ± 12% -86.89% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreGetNoKeyFound-8 5.0 ± 0% 4.0 ± 0% -20.00% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ``` Note: Purposefully using a commit off master that doesn't include the buggy code that caused x/bank.BenchmarkOneBank* to fail per issue cosmos#10023 Updates cosmos#9876 /cc @cuonglm @kirbyquerby <!-- The default pull request template is for types feat, fix, or refactor. For other templates, add one of the following parameters to the url: - template=docs.md - template=other.md --> ## Description Closes: #XXXX <!-- Add a description of the changes that this PR introduces and the files that are the most critical to review. --> --- ### Author Checklist *All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and please add links to any relevant follow up issues.* I have... - [x] included the correct [type prefix](https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/v3.0.0/index.json) in the PR title - [x] added `!` to the type prefix if API or client breaking change - [x] targeted the correct branch (see [PR Targeting](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#pr-targeting)) - [x] provided a link to the relevant issue or specification - [x] followed the guidelines for [building modules](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/docs/building-modules) - [x] included the necessary unit and integration [tests](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#testing) - [ ] added a changelog entry to `CHANGELOG.md` - [x] included comments for [documenting Go code](https://blog.golang.org/godoc) - [ ] updated the relevant documentation or specification - [ ] reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary - [ ] confirmed all CI checks have passed ### Reviewers Checklist *All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.* I have... - [ ] confirmed the correct [type prefix](https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/v3.0.0/index.json) in the PR title - [ ] confirmed `!` in the type prefix if API or client breaking change - [ ] confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed - [ ] reviewed state machine logic - [ ] reviewed API design and naming - [ ] reviewed documentation is accurate - [ ] reviewed tests and test coverage - [ ] manually tested (if applicable) (cherry picked from commit 3c85944) # Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md * fix conflict Co-authored-by: Emmanuel T Odeke <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: marbar3778 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Robert Zaremba <[email protected]>
19 tasks
zakir-code
pushed a commit
to PundiAI/cosmos-sdk
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2022
…binary searches (backport cosmos#10024) (cosmos#10370) * fix!: store/cachekv: reduce growth factor for iterator ranging using binary searches (cosmos#10024) This change takes the observation that previous dbm.IsKeyInDomain which searches for [start, end) was performing too many byteslice comparisons. Instead we start off by sorting all the values in the store.unsortedCache, and then apply a modified binary search to look for values that fall within the domain [start, end) The procedure involves: * iterating over all items to build a list of all keys -- O(n) * invoking sort.Strings immediately, of which we anyways eventually invoke sort.Slice(unsorted, ...) which uses Quicksort -- O(nlog(n)) or O(n^2) worst case * invoking modified binary search which is O(log(n)) * 2 ~ O(log(n)) to search for the [start, end) range indices for a total approximate complexity of: Best case: O(n) + O(n(log(n))) + O(log(n)) ~= O(nlog(n)) Worst case: O(n) + O(n^2) + O(log(n)) ~= O(n^2) instead of previously: * iterating over all the unsorted items and invoking dbm.IsKeyInDomain: bytes.Compare ~ O(n) + O(n*s*e) where s -- len(start), e -- len(end) for overall complexity of O(n*s*e) * invoking sort.Slice(unsorted, ...) which uses Quicksort -- O(nlog(n)) or O(n^2) worst case for a total approximate complexity of: Best case: O(n) + O(n*s*e) + O(nlog(n)) ~= O(n*s*e) ~ O(n^2) Worst case: O(n) + O(n*s*e) + O(n^2) ~= O(n*s*e) ~ O(n^2) Ordinarily we'd combine the n*s*e to be n*m, but really the comparisons between (start & key, end & key) are profound that it makes sense to keep them as factors. The overall benchmark results vindicate our choice of isolating the factors (n*s*e) The benchmarks show that as the number of keys to iterate grows, the new code grows gracefully in a somewhat linear growth, notice for CAcheKVStoreIterator*, when we go from: * 1,000 to 10,000 keys: 120us->1,600us (13X) old vs 95us->900us (9.47X) new * 50,000 to 100,000 keys: 19ms->100ms (5.3X) old vs 5.5ms->17ms (3X) new ```shell time/op GetValidator-8 5.8ms ± 2% 4.7ms ± 1% -17.69% (p=0.000 n=10+10) OneBankSendTxPerBlock-8 3.2ms ± 2% 2.8ms ± 1% -10.80% (p=0.000 n=7+10) OneBankMultiSendTxPerBlock-8 3.1ms ± 3% 2.9ms ± 2% -8.36% (p=0.000 n=10+10) AccountMapperSetAccount-8 8.6µs ± 1% 7.8µs ± 1% -9.74% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator500-8 64µs ± 6% 51µs ± 6% -19.22% (p=0.000 n=10+9) CacheKVStoreIterator1000-8 0.12ms ± 4% 95µs ± 4% -19.55% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator10000-8 1.6ms ± 4% 0.90ms ± 1% -42.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator50000-8 19ms ± 5% 5.5ms ± 1% -71.35% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator100000-8 0.10s ± 23% 17ms ± 7% -83.44% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreGetNoKeyFound-8 1.3µs ± 6% 0.90µs ± 3% -31.19% (p=0.000 n=9+9) CacheKVStoreGetKeyFound-8 0.66µs ± 6% 0.56µs ± 2% -14.81% (p=0.000 n=10+9) alloc/op B/op BlockProvision-8 0.11kB ± 0% 0.10kB ± 0% -7.14% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator50000-8 0.89MB ± 6% 0.53MB ± 1% -40.85% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator100000-8 6.3MB ± 23% 1.6MB ± 6% -74.17% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreGetNoKeyFound-8 0.26kB ± 0% 0.23kB ± 1% -11.53% (p=0.000 n=10+8) allocs/op (count) AccountMapperSetAccount-8 42 ± 0% 38 ± 0% -9.52% (p=0.000 n=10+10) BlockProvision-8 6.0 ± 0% 5.0 ± 0% -16.67% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator1000-8 14 ± 0% 13 ± 0% -7.14% (p=0.002 n=8+10) CacheKVStoreIterator10000-8 0.15k ± 2% 76 ± 1% -49.00% (p=0.000 n=7+10) CacheKVStoreIterator50000-8 8.9k ± 11% 2.0k ± 2% -77.60% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator100000-8 0.10M ± 26% 13k ± 12% -86.89% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreGetNoKeyFound-8 5.0 ± 0% 4.0 ± 0% -20.00% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ``` Note: Purposefully using a commit off master that doesn't include the buggy code that caused x/bank.BenchmarkOneBank* to fail per issue cosmos#10023 Updates cosmos#9876 /cc @cuonglm @kirbyquerby <!-- The default pull request template is for types feat, fix, or refactor. For other templates, add one of the following parameters to the url: - template=docs.md - template=other.md --> ## Description Closes: #XXXX <!-- Add a description of the changes that this PR introduces and the files that are the most critical to review. --> --- ### Author Checklist *All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and please add links to any relevant follow up issues.* I have... - [x] included the correct [type prefix](https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/v3.0.0/index.json) in the PR title - [x] added `!` to the type prefix if API or client breaking change - [x] targeted the correct branch (see [PR Targeting](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#pr-targeting)) - [x] provided a link to the relevant issue or specification - [x] followed the guidelines for [building modules](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/docs/building-modules) - [x] included the necessary unit and integration [tests](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#testing) - [ ] added a changelog entry to `CHANGELOG.md` - [x] included comments for [documenting Go code](https://blog.golang.org/godoc) - [ ] updated the relevant documentation or specification - [ ] reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary - [ ] confirmed all CI checks have passed ### Reviewers Checklist *All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.* I have... - [ ] confirmed the correct [type prefix](https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/v3.0.0/index.json) in the PR title - [ ] confirmed `!` in the type prefix if API or client breaking change - [ ] confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed - [ ] reviewed state machine logic - [ ] reviewed API design and naming - [ ] reviewed documentation is accurate - [ ] reviewed tests and test coverage - [ ] manually tested (if applicable) (cherry picked from commit 3c85944) # Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md * fix conflict Co-authored-by: Emmanuel T Odeke <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: marbar3778 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Robert Zaremba <[email protected]>
JeancarloBarrios
pushed a commit
to agoric-labs/cosmos-sdk
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 28, 2024
…binary searches (backport cosmos#10024) (cosmos#10370) * fix!: store/cachekv: reduce growth factor for iterator ranging using binary searches (cosmos#10024) This change takes the observation that previous dbm.IsKeyInDomain which searches for [start, end) was performing too many byteslice comparisons. Instead we start off by sorting all the values in the store.unsortedCache, and then apply a modified binary search to look for values that fall within the domain [start, end) The procedure involves: * iterating over all items to build a list of all keys -- O(n) * invoking sort.Strings immediately, of which we anyways eventually invoke sort.Slice(unsorted, ...) which uses Quicksort -- O(nlog(n)) or O(n^2) worst case * invoking modified binary search which is O(log(n)) * 2 ~ O(log(n)) to search for the [start, end) range indices for a total approximate complexity of: Best case: O(n) + O(n(log(n))) + O(log(n)) ~= O(nlog(n)) Worst case: O(n) + O(n^2) + O(log(n)) ~= O(n^2) instead of previously: * iterating over all the unsorted items and invoking dbm.IsKeyInDomain: bytes.Compare ~ O(n) + O(n*s*e) where s -- len(start), e -- len(end) for overall complexity of O(n*s*e) * invoking sort.Slice(unsorted, ...) which uses Quicksort -- O(nlog(n)) or O(n^2) worst case for a total approximate complexity of: Best case: O(n) + O(n*s*e) + O(nlog(n)) ~= O(n*s*e) ~ O(n^2) Worst case: O(n) + O(n*s*e) + O(n^2) ~= O(n*s*e) ~ O(n^2) Ordinarily we'd combine the n*s*e to be n*m, but really the comparisons between (start & key, end & key) are profound that it makes sense to keep them as factors. The overall benchmark results vindicate our choice of isolating the factors (n*s*e) The benchmarks show that as the number of keys to iterate grows, the new code grows gracefully in a somewhat linear growth, notice for CAcheKVStoreIterator*, when we go from: * 1,000 to 10,000 keys: 120us->1,600us (13X) old vs 95us->900us (9.47X) new * 50,000 to 100,000 keys: 19ms->100ms (5.3X) old vs 5.5ms->17ms (3X) new ```shell time/op GetValidator-8 5.8ms ± 2% 4.7ms ± 1% -17.69% (p=0.000 n=10+10) OneBankSendTxPerBlock-8 3.2ms ± 2% 2.8ms ± 1% -10.80% (p=0.000 n=7+10) OneBankMultiSendTxPerBlock-8 3.1ms ± 3% 2.9ms ± 2% -8.36% (p=0.000 n=10+10) AccountMapperSetAccount-8 8.6µs ± 1% 7.8µs ± 1% -9.74% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator500-8 64µs ± 6% 51µs ± 6% -19.22% (p=0.000 n=10+9) CacheKVStoreIterator1000-8 0.12ms ± 4% 95µs ± 4% -19.55% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator10000-8 1.6ms ± 4% 0.90ms ± 1% -42.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator50000-8 19ms ± 5% 5.5ms ± 1% -71.35% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator100000-8 0.10s ± 23% 17ms ± 7% -83.44% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreGetNoKeyFound-8 1.3µs ± 6% 0.90µs ± 3% -31.19% (p=0.000 n=9+9) CacheKVStoreGetKeyFound-8 0.66µs ± 6% 0.56µs ± 2% -14.81% (p=0.000 n=10+9) alloc/op B/op BlockProvision-8 0.11kB ± 0% 0.10kB ± 0% -7.14% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator50000-8 0.89MB ± 6% 0.53MB ± 1% -40.85% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator100000-8 6.3MB ± 23% 1.6MB ± 6% -74.17% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreGetNoKeyFound-8 0.26kB ± 0% 0.23kB ± 1% -11.53% (p=0.000 n=10+8) allocs/op (count) AccountMapperSetAccount-8 42 ± 0% 38 ± 0% -9.52% (p=0.000 n=10+10) BlockProvision-8 6.0 ± 0% 5.0 ± 0% -16.67% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator1000-8 14 ± 0% 13 ± 0% -7.14% (p=0.002 n=8+10) CacheKVStoreIterator10000-8 0.15k ± 2% 76 ± 1% -49.00% (p=0.000 n=7+10) CacheKVStoreIterator50000-8 8.9k ± 11% 2.0k ± 2% -77.60% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreIterator100000-8 0.10M ± 26% 13k ± 12% -86.89% (p=0.000 n=10+10) CacheKVStoreGetNoKeyFound-8 5.0 ± 0% 4.0 ± 0% -20.00% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ``` Note: Purposefully using a commit off master that doesn't include the buggy code that caused x/bank.BenchmarkOneBank* to fail per issue cosmos#10023 Updates cosmos#9876 /cc @cuonglm @kirbyquerby <!-- The default pull request template is for types feat, fix, or refactor. For other templates, add one of the following parameters to the url: - template=docs.md - template=other.md --> ## Description Closes: #XXXX <!-- Add a description of the changes that this PR introduces and the files that are the most critical to review. --> --- ### Author Checklist *All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and please add links to any relevant follow up issues.* I have... - [x] included the correct [type prefix](https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/v3.0.0/index.json) in the PR title - [x] added `!` to the type prefix if API or client breaking change - [x] targeted the correct branch (see [PR Targeting](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#pr-targeting)) - [x] provided a link to the relevant issue or specification - [x] followed the guidelines for [building modules](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/docs/building-modules) - [x] included the necessary unit and integration [tests](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#testing) - [ ] added a changelog entry to `CHANGELOG.md` - [x] included comments for [documenting Go code](https://blog.golang.org/godoc) - [ ] updated the relevant documentation or specification - [ ] reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary - [ ] confirmed all CI checks have passed ### Reviewers Checklist *All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.* I have... - [ ] confirmed the correct [type prefix](https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/v3.0.0/index.json) in the PR title - [ ] confirmed `!` in the type prefix if API or client breaking change - [ ] confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed - [ ] reviewed state machine logic - [ ] reviewed API design and naming - [ ] reviewed documentation is accurate - [ ] reviewed tests and test coverage - [ ] manually tested (if applicable) (cherry picked from commit 3c85944) # Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md * fix conflict Co-authored-by: Emmanuel T Odeke <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: marbar3778 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Robert Zaremba <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is an automatic backport of pull request #10024 done by Mergify.
Cherry-pick of 3c85944 has failed:
To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/github/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally
Mergify commands and options
More conditions and actions can be found in the documentation.
You can also trigger Mergify actions by commenting on this pull request:
@Mergifyio refreshwill re-evaluate the rules@Mergifyio rebasewill rebase this PR on its base branch@Mergifyio updatewill merge the base branch into this PR@Mergifyio backport <destination>will backport this PR on<destination>branchAdditionally, on Mergify dashboard you can:
Finally, you can contact us on https://mergify.io/