x/bank: BenchmarkOneBankSend.*TxPerBlock benchmarks have been failing for a long time #10023
Closed
4 tasks done
Assignees
Labels
Comments
This was referenced Aug 29, 2021
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 14, 2021
…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)
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 14, 2021
…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
robert-zaremba
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 15, 2021
…binary searches (backport #10024) (#10370) * fix!: store/cachekv: reduce growth factor for iterator ranging using 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 * fix conflict Co-authored-by: Emmanuel T Odeke <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: marbar3778 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Robert Zaremba <[email protected]>
evan-forbes
pushed a commit
to evan-forbes/cosmos-sdk
that referenced
this issue
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]>
|
seems the issue is still present. |
daeMOn63
pushed a commit
to fetchai/cosmos-sdk
that referenced
this issue
Mar 1, 2022
…binary searches (backport #10024) (#10370) * fix!: store/cachekv: reduce growth factor for iterator ranging using 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 cosmos/cosmos-sdk#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. -->
zakir-code
pushed a commit
to PundiAI/cosmos-sdk
that referenced
this issue
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]>
|
seems this now passes |
JeancarloBarrios
pushed a commit
to agoric-labs/cosmos-sdk
that referenced
this issue
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
Summary of Bug
From bencher, we've seen lots of failures from BenchmarkOneBankSendTxPerBlock like https://dashboard.github.orijtech.com/benchmark/c523dff9587a4e24bf6eb9f7698f67b5
--- FAIL: BenchmarkOneBankSendTxPerBlock bench_test.go:56: Error Trace: bench_test.go:56 Error: Received unexpected error: github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante.SigVerificationDecorator.AnteHandle /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante/sigverify.go:275 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.ChainAnteDecorators.func1 /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types/handler.go:40 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante.SigGasConsumeDecorator.AnteHandle /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante/sigverify.go:190 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.ChainAnteDecorators.func1 /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types/handler.go:40 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante.ValidateSigCountDecorator.AnteHandle /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante/sigverify.go:388 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.ChainAnteDecorators.func1 /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types/handler.go:40 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante.SetPubKeyDecorator.AnteHandle /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante/sigverify.go:126 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.ChainAnteDecorators.func1 /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types/handler.go:40 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante.DeductFeeDecorator.AnteHandle /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante/fee.go:125 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.ChainAnteDecorators.func1 /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types/handler.go:40 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante.ConsumeTxSizeGasDecorator.AnteHandle /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante/basic.go:143 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.ChainAnteDecorators.func1 /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types/handler.go:40 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante.ValidateMemoDecorator.AnteHandle /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante/basic.go:67 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.ChainAnteDecorators.func1 /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types/handler.go:40 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante.TxTimeoutHeightDecorator.AnteHandle /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante/basic.go:206 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.ChainAnteDecorators.func1 /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types/handler.go:40 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante.ValidateBasicDecorator.AnteHandle /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante/basic.go:35 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.ChainAnteDecorators.func1 /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types/handler.go:40 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante.MempoolFeeDecorator.AnteHandle /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante/fee.go:54 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.ChainAnteDecorators.func1 /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types/handler.go:40 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante.RejectExtensionOptionsDecorator.AnteHandle /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/ante/ext.go:35 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.ChainAnteDecorators.func1 /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types/handler.go:40 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/middleware.legacyAnteTxHandler.runAnte /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/middleware/legacy_ante.go:81 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/middleware.legacyAnteTxHandler.DeliverTx /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/middleware/legacy_ante.go:41 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/middleware.indexEventsTxHandler.DeliverTx /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/middleware/index_events.go:45 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/middleware.recoveryTxHandler.DeliverTx /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/middleware/recovery.go:74 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/middleware.gasTxHandler.DeliverTx /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/middleware/gas.go:53 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/baseapp.(*BaseApp).SimDeliver /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/baseapp/test_helpers.go:58 github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/bank_test.BenchmarkOneBankSendTxPerBlock /home/cuong/go/src/github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/bank/bench_test.go:55 account sequence mismatch, expected 1, got 0: incorrect account sequence Test: BenchmarkOneBankSendTxPerBlockVersion
I am cosmos-sdk with the latest commit ebing e9adb9e
Steps to Reproduce
By doing a binary search, I've found that this commit 994f2d6 from PR #9920 seems to have somehow caused this failure cc @AmauryM @robert-zaremba @alexanderbez @cuonglm for an FYI.
For Admin Use
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: