Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

x/staking: add ValidateGenesis benchmark #8746

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 2, 2021

Conversation

odeke-em
Copy link
Collaborator

@odeke-em odeke-em commented Mar 2, 2021

This benchmark examines how ValidateGenesis behaves.
In a follow-up issue, I'll show how it reveals an inefficiency
that'll affect trying to load repeatedly retrieve Validators'
ConsAddress values.

Updates #8744


Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.

  • Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)
  • Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
  • Code follows the module structure standards.
  • Wrote unit and integration tests
  • Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)
  • Added relevant godoc comments.
  • Added a relevant changelog entry to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md
  • Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer
  • Review Codecov Report in the comment section below once CI passes

This benchmark examines how ValidateGenesis behaves.
In a follow-up issue, I'll show how it reveals an inefficiency
that'll affect trying to load repeatedly retrieve Validators'
ConsAddress values.

Updates #8744
Copy link
Member

@tac0turtle tac0turtle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

Are you working on benchmarking other parts of staking?

@odeke-em
Copy link
Collaborator Author

odeke-em commented Mar 2, 2021

Thanks for the review @marbar3778!

Are you working on benchmarking other parts of staking?

Kind of, my initial priority is getting objective benchmarks and comparisons that anyone can see improvements on, and a comparison mechanism. To do this I investigate various parts of the SDK that are slow and then when I am going to suggest a change, send a benchmark.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants