fix!: store/cachekv: reduce growth factor for iterator ranging using binary searches #10024
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
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #10024 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 64.24% 63.61% -0.64%
==========================================
Files 572 572
Lines 54158 53657 -501
==========================================
- Hits 34794 34132 -662
- Misses 17384 17582 +198
+ Partials 1980 1943 -37
|
odeke-em
changed the title
|
Alrighty, all tests pass. Please help me take a look folks. |
tac0turtle
approved these changes
Sep 30, 2021
robert-zaremba
approved these changes
Oct 4, 2021
tac0turtle
added
the
A:automerge
|
@odeke-em can you merge master, then the bot will merge this PR |
Thank you @marbar3778! I've added a CHANGELOG.md entry as well as rebased from the master branch. Thank you @marbar3778 and @robert-zaremba for the code reviews! |
… searches 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
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
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 pull request
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 <emmanuel@orijtech.com> Co-authored-by: marbar3778 <marbar3778@yahoo.com> Co-authored-by: Robert Zaremba <robert@zaremba.ch>
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 <emmanuel@orijtech.com> Co-authored-by: marbar3778 <marbar3778@yahoo.com> Co-authored-by: Robert Zaremba <robert@zaremba.ch>
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 <emmanuel@orijtech.com> Co-authored-by: marbar3778 <marbar3778@yahoo.com> Co-authored-by: Robert Zaremba <robert@zaremba.ch>
4 tasks
5 tasks
BrandonWeng
added a commit
to sei-protocol/sei-cosmos
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 15, 2022
## Describe your changes and provide context Cherry picking changes here: * [\#14168](cosmos/cosmos-sdk#14168) perf: store/cachekv: preallocate kvL in dirtyItems which gets appended too * [\#10024](cosmos/cosmos-sdk#10024) fix!: store/cachekv: reduce growth factor for iterator ranging using binary searches #10024 ## Testing performed to validate your change Ran a cluster 
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 <emmanuel@orijtech.com> Co-authored-by: marbar3778 <marbar3778@yahoo.com> Co-authored-by: Robert Zaremba <robert@zaremba.ch>
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 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:
we anyways eventually invoke sort.Slice(unsorted, ...) which uses
Quicksort -- O(nlog(n)) or O(n^2) worst case
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:
bytes.Compare ~ O(n) + O(nse) where s -- len(start), e -- len(end)
for overall complexity of O(nse)
Quicksort -- O(nlog(n)) or O(n^2) worst case
for a total approximate complexity of:
Best case: O(n) + O(nse) + O(nlog(n)) ~= O(nse) ~ O(n^2)
Worst case: O(n) + O(nse) + O(n^2) ~= O(nse) ~ O(n^2)
Ordinarily we'd combine the nse to be nm, 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 (ns*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:
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
Description
Closes: #XXXX
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...
!to the type prefix if API or client breaking changeCHANGELOG.mdReviewers 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...
!in the type prefix if API or client breaking change