test: write benchmarks to compare performance of store v1/v2 under different load scenarios #10722

adu-web3 · 2021-12-10T03:20:50Z

test load scenarios with different percentages of operations

Description

construct store v1/v2 with different percentages of Has, Get, Set, Delete operations and test the store load performance

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...

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 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)

adu-web3 · 2021-12-10T03:31:34Z

Hi @robert-zaremba, I'm not sure if this meets the demand in #10297
could you please review first and I will revise or continue based on your review

robert-zaremba

Le's reduce duplication in the code and change the sampling mechanism.

store/bench_test.go

robert-zaremba · 2021-12-16T14:13:28Z

Let's make few, independent benchmarks. We should create a Store interface which is compatible with both store v1 and v2 and use it as a parameter to benchmark instead of copying it.

The following benchmarks should be implemented:

Randomized has,get, set , delete operations (so what's done above).
Deterministic operations:
create a blob data (eg 1kb) - we will use it as a value
we will use keys as integers key = math.sinus(i) for index i
we will try to simulate operations, pseudocode:

// in each round we mock some transaction operations
step := max(n_get, n_set, n_has, n_delete)
while round <= n_rounds {  
  op := 0
  idx := round*step
  while op <= n_get {  // here we do some reads 
     key := createKey( idx + op )
     , _ err := store.Get(key)
     require.NoError(err)
  }
  while op <= n_has {  // here we do some reads 
     key := createKey( idx + op )
     err := store.Set(key)
  }
  // .... delete, set
  
  // at the  end we need to commit
  store.Commit()
}

function createKey (idx: int) []byte {
    return bigendian( int(math.sinus(idx) * 100000) )
}

Let's start with: n_get = 20, n_set = 5, n_delete = 1, n_has = 5.
Ideally we should also check the DB size in MB.

adu-web3 · 2021-12-30T03:57:02Z

@robert-zaremba
store v2 seems even slower for randomized read/write and deterministic read/write performance in all scenarios.
I didn't figure out the reason.
Is my way to testing the performance incorrect?

(base) adudu@CNMAC0342 cosmos-sdk % benchstat v1.txt v2.txt
name                                 old time/op    new time/op     delta
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-5-65-30-0-12       46.8ms ± 0%    820.4ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-0-0-100-12       3.06ms ± 0%   148.39ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-0-20-80-12       44.0ms ± 0%    724.7ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-0-40-60-12       62.5ms ± 0%   1441.3ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-0-60-40-12       68.0ms ± 0%   2239.1ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-0-80-20-12       74.0ms ± 0%   3393.7ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-20-0-80-12       2.51ms ± 0%   135.24ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-20-20-60-12      32.1ms ± 0%    675.5ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-20-40-40-12      48.8ms ± 0%   1399.0ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-20-60-20-12      59.9ms ± 0%   2234.7ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-20-80-0-12       73.2ms ± 0%   3183.4ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-40-0-60-12       2.94ms ± 0%   131.22ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-40-20-40-12      32.3ms ± 0%    708.0ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-40-40-20-12      47.1ms ± 0%   1423.9ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-40-60-0-12       60.9ms ± 0%   2208.7ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-60-0-40-12       2.49ms ± 0%   104.07ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-60-20-20-12      32.1ms ± 0%    619.1ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-60-40-0-12       47.9ms ± 0%   1244.2ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-80-0-20-12       3.26ms ± 0%    88.18ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-0-80-20-0-12       43.5ms ± 0%    563.1ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-20-0-0-80-12       2.75ms ± 0%   131.86ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-20-0-20-60-12      33.2ms ± 0%    740.7ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-20-0-40-40-12      47.8ms ± 0%   1502.5ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-20-0-60-20-12      62.8ms ± 0%   2459.3ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-20-0-80-0-12       72.4ms ± 0%   3538.7ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-20-20-0-60-12      2.53ms ± 0%   128.41ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-20-20-20-40-12     32.9ms ± 0%    747.7ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-20-20-40-20-12     46.2ms ± 0%   1457.5ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-20-20-60-0-12      60.2ms ± 0%   2279.5ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-20-40-0-40-12      2.58ms ± 0%   109.88ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-20-40-20-20-12     32.8ms ± 0%    639.4ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-20-40-40-0-12      45.3ms ± 0%   1985.1ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-20-60-0-20-12      2.52ms ± 0%    78.22ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-20-60-20-0-12      32.0ms ± 0%    555.6ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-20-80-0-0-12       2.45ms ± 0%    48.29ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-40-0-0-60-12       2.52ms ± 0%   164.79ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-40-0-20-40-12      32.9ms ± 0%   1356.9ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-40-0-40-20-12      46.4ms ± 0%   1486.5ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-40-0-60-0-12       59.9ms ± 0%   2234.6ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-40-20-0-40-12      2.50ms ± 0%    84.44ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-40-20-20-20-12     32.0ms ± 0%    597.2ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-40-20-40-0-12      46.7ms ± 0%   1258.0ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-40-40-0-20-12      2.45ms ± 0%    76.17ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-40-40-20-0-12      32.3ms ± 0%    531.9ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-40-60-0-0-12       2.49ms ± 0%    48.52ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-60-0-0-40-12       2.53ms ± 0%    89.81ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-60-0-20-20-12      31.4ms ± 0%    584.7ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-60-0-40-0-12       46.9ms ± 0%   1609.4ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-60-20-0-20-12      2.49ms ± 0%    87.95ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-60-20-20-0-12      31.5ms ± 0%    687.5ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-60-40-0-0-12       2.49ms ± 0%    65.19ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-80-0-0-20-12       2.45ms ± 0%    78.12ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-80-0-20-0-12       32.3ms ± 0%    678.8ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-rocksdb-80-20-0-0-12       2.46ms ± 0%    54.40ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-5-65-30-0-12      42.5ms ± 0%     51.0ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-0-0-100-12      3.36ms ± 0%    11.24ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-0-20-80-12      36.5ms ± 0%     51.9ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-0-40-60-12      52.8ms ± 0%     77.8ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-0-60-40-12      69.5ms ± 0%    105.2ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-0-80-20-12      87.5ms ± 0%    121.9ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-20-0-80-12      3.19ms ± 0%    10.26ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-20-20-60-12     34.8ms ± 0%     45.1ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-20-40-40-12     51.1ms ± 0%     72.3ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-20-60-20-12     75.8ms ± 0%     95.1ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-20-80-0-12      97.1ms ± 0%    123.6ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-40-0-60-12      4.06ms ± 0%     8.99ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-40-20-40-12     33.8ms ± 0%     38.3ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-40-40-20-12     48.7ms ± 0%     60.0ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-40-60-0-12      63.3ms ± 0%     87.1ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-60-0-40-12      3.31ms ± 0%     8.12ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-60-20-20-12     33.6ms ± 0%     32.0ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-60-40-0-12      48.2ms ± 0%     53.9ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-80-0-20-12      3.04ms ± 0%     6.98ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-0-80-20-0-12      32.7ms ± 0%     26.9ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-20-0-0-80-12      3.32ms ± 0%    10.08ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-20-0-20-60-12     32.5ms ± 0%     48.4ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-20-0-40-40-12     50.5ms ± 0%     75.7ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-20-0-60-20-12     66.4ms ± 0%    106.4ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-20-0-80-0-12      90.8ms ± 0%    122.1ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-20-20-0-60-12     3.37ms ± 0%     8.19ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-20-20-20-40-12    34.6ms ± 0%     30.2ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-20-20-40-20-12    49.9ms ± 0%     45.1ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-20-20-60-0-12     63.1ms ± 0%     64.9ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-20-40-0-40-12     3.23ms ± 0%     6.97ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-20-40-20-20-12    32.5ms ± 0%     67.8ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-20-40-40-0-12     48.4ms ± 0%    103.0ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-20-60-0-20-12     3.33ms ± 0%    52.05ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-20-60-20-0-12     33.3ms ± 0%     22.4ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-20-80-0-0-12      3.57ms ± 0%     3.95ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-40-0-0-60-12      3.19ms ± 0%    44.35ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-40-0-20-40-12     33.8ms ± 0%    157.3ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-40-0-40-20-12     49.9ms ± 0%    252.8ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-40-0-60-0-12      64.8ms ± 0%    349.8ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-40-20-0-40-12     3.33ms ± 0%    44.23ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-40-20-20-20-12    33.1ms ± 0%    107.7ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-40-20-40-0-12     47.9ms ± 0%     62.5ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-40-40-0-20-12     3.92ms ± 0%     9.75ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-40-40-20-0-12     43.5ms ± 0%     26.6ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-40-60-0-0-12      3.31ms ± 0%     5.29ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-60-0-0-40-12      3.24ms ± 0%    11.55ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-60-0-20-20-12     33.2ms ± 0%     36.3ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-60-0-40-0-12      48.5ms ± 0%     56.1ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-60-20-0-20-12     3.25ms ± 0%     7.21ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-60-20-20-0-12     33.2ms ± 0%     24.2ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-60-40-0-0-12      3.25ms ± 0%     4.33ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-80-0-0-20-12      3.24ms ± 0%     8.49ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-80-0-20-0-12      33.6ms ± 0%     23.3ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/r-badgerdb-80-20-0-0-12      3.14ms ± 0%     4.28ms ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/d-rocksdb-5-20-5-1-12         310µs ± 0%     6261µs ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
LoadStore/d-badgerdb-5-20-5-1-12        520µs ± 0%      316µs ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)

tomtau

referring to: #10297 (comment)
is it possible to have a benchmark for "rollback"?

adu-web3 · 2022-01-12T03:40:01Z

referring to: #10297 (comment) is it possible to have a benchmark for "rollback"?

sure, I'll add tests for rollback scenarios

robert-zaremba

Let's move the status of this PR to ready for review.
We should also benchmark "revert" in this PR or another PR.

go.mod

store/bench_test.go

roysc · 2022-02-09T15:38:09Z

go.mod

@@ -156,4 +154,3 @@ replace github.com/gin-gonic/gin => github.com/gin-gonic/gin v1.7.0

 replace github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/db => ./db



Suggested change

replace github.com/tecbot/gorocksdb => github.com/cosmos/gorocksdb v1.2.0

Should use the cosmos fork here, the changes on my fork are merged in there

we don't need this replace any more - in master we already migrated fully to cosmos/gorocksdb.

roysc · 2022-02-10T00:20:12Z

Oops. Sorry my attention is elsewhere. I'll hold off on commenting until I properly review this -------- Original Message --------

…

On Feb 10, 2022, 4:24 AM, Robert Zaremba wrote: @robert-zaremba commented on this pull request. --------------------------------------------------------------- In [go.mod](#10722 (comment)): > @@ -156,4 +154,3 @@ replace github.com/gin-gonic/gin => github.com/gin-gonic/gin v1.7.0 replace github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/db => ./db we don't need replace any more - in master we already migrated fully to cosmos/gorocksdb. — Reply to this email directly, [view it on GitHub](#10722 (comment)), or [unsubscribe](https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHLKSDVWJNVTHGJWP2H2DS3U2LEOPANCNFSM5JYD5NDA). Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for [iOS](https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675) or [Android](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub). You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: ***@***.***>

robert-zaremba

Let's try to merge this PR. We can push updates in subsequent PRs.
@roysc could you review / approve as well?

roysc

This LGTM but we should merge in the refactor-multistore branch again, it contains some patches so this works for the badger backend (I pushed a merged branch here, feel free to use or cherry pick that)

store/bench_test.go

adu-web3 · 2022-03-11T05:39:25Z

it seems the bencher has failed due to not specifying build tags

roysc · 2022-03-11T08:33:55Z

Seems we need to configure build tags for the gobencher action, but I don't know how (nothing about it in https://bencher.orijtech.com/configuration/), maybe @odeke-em can advise?

robert-zaremba · 2022-03-17T09:04:00Z

Shall we merge this branch and iterate in new PRs?

roysc · 2022-03-17T09:08:33Z

@robert-zaremba I think so. Hopefully we can find a solution to the CI action later, but it shouldn't be critical at this stage.

peterbourgon

I don't think these benchmarks are sound, unfortunately.

peterbourgon · 2022-04-05T03:13:42Z

store/bench_test.go

+	for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
+		idx := i * step
+
+		b.StopTimer()
+		if idx >= len(values) {
+			for j := len(values); j < (idx + step); j++ {
+				values = append(values, randBytes(50))
+			}
+		}
+
+		b.StartTimer()


Go benchmarks expect that each iteration of b.N exercises only the code which is being measured. Manipulating the timer in the b.N loop subverts that expectation and typically invalidates the benchmark.

thanks for pointing out this.
I will move this part out of the loop

peterbourgon · 2022-04-05T03:14:39Z

store/bench_test.go

+
+		b.StartTimer()
+		for j := 0; j < c.set; j++ {
+			key := createKey(idx + j)


It's best to pre-allocate keys outside of the benchmarking loop. Otherwise you're likely to be benchmarking the key generation code.

peterbourgon · 2022-04-05T03:18:23Z

store/bench_test.go

+			key := createKey(idx + j)
+			s.Delete(key)
+		}
+		s.Commit()


Here you're measuring an entire transaction of arbitrarily many operations in each benchmark loop. This means each call of this function with different counts are not comparable. Is that your intent?

peterbourgon · 2022-04-05T03:18:55Z

store/bench_test.go

+			s.Set(createKey(i), v)
+		}
+
+		b.ResetTimer()


Resetting the timer with each iteration produces nonsensical results.

peterbourgon · 2022-04-09T04:21:08Z

store/bench_test.go

+			switch op {
+			case "Has":
+				s.Has(randBytes(12))
+			case "Get":
+				s.Get(randBytes(12))
+			case "Set":
+				s.Set(randBytes(12), randBytes(50))
+			case "Delete":
+				s.Delete(randBytes(12))
+			}


If a benchmark uses random (nondeterministic) data like this, then each execution performs different work. But the expectation is that each loop is doing exactly the same thing. If that's not the case, the benchmark doesn't produce accurate results.

If you want to use randomized data, create a rand.Source from a seed int64 that's random by default but can be provided by the caller if they so choose. And be sure to print the seed, so that callers can re-run exactly the same scenario. Then, generate all of the random data before entering any b.N loops, as otherwise your test is including the cost of generating random numbers.

Yup. That's pretty much how sims work. I support this idea.

tac0turtle · 2022-07-13T09:03:06Z

what's the status here? seems like this PR hasn't been touched in ages. We will begin closing prs that are sitting for extended periods of time.

adu-crypto · 2022-07-13T09:07:43Z

what's the status here? seems like this PR hasn't been touched in ages. We will begin closing prs that are sitting for extended periods of time.

it requires refactoring to reveal the real performance. I think I need to talk with @roysc to fix this pr by cherry-picking from his branch or refactoring this pr.

tac0turtle · 2022-08-22T06:46:08Z

closing this for now as the store v2 work Is reviewed

github-actions bot added the C:Store label Dec 10, 2021

adu-web3 marked this pull request as ready for review December 10, 2021 03:26

adu-web3 requested review from aaronc and alexanderbez as code owners December 10, 2021 03:26

adu-web3 marked this pull request as draft December 10, 2021 03:28

i-norden requested review from i-norden and roysc December 15, 2021 15:10

adu-web3 changed the title ~~store: write benchmarks /store and /store/v2 with different load scenarios~~ store: write benchmarks to compare performance of store v1/v2 under different load scenarios Dec 16, 2021

adu-web3 changed the title ~~store: write benchmarks to compare performance of store v1/v2 under different load scenarios~~ test: write benchmarks to compare performance of store v1/v2 under different load scenarios Dec 16, 2021

robert-zaremba reviewed Dec 16, 2021

View reviewed changes

tomtau reviewed Jan 12, 2022

View reviewed changes

robert-zaremba reviewed Jan 17, 2022

View reviewed changes

robert-zaremba reviewed Jan 19, 2022

View reviewed changes

store/bench_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

robert-zaremba reviewed Jan 19, 2022

View reviewed changes

store/bench_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

robert-zaremba reviewed Jan 19, 2022

View reviewed changes

store/bench_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

adu-web3 marked this pull request as ready for review January 21, 2022 07:24

adu-web3 force-pushed the store_benchmarks branch from ad781db to 127b71d Compare February 9, 2022 15:18

roysc reviewed Feb 9, 2022

View reviewed changes

robert-zaremba approved these changes Mar 6, 2022

View reviewed changes

roysc reviewed Mar 7, 2022

View reviewed changes

store/bench_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

store/bench_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved

store/bench_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

roysc mentioned this pull request Mar 7, 2022

Analyze and improve store/v2 performance #11328

Closed

7 tasks

github-actions bot added C:CLI C:Cosmovisor Issues and PR related to Cosmovisor C:orm C:Rosetta Issues and PR related to Rosetta labels Mar 7, 2022

adu-web3 and others added 17 commits March 11, 2022 13:33

test on randomized operations and deterministic operations

ffb03ef

replace tecbot/gorocksdb with roysc/gorocksdb

dd3f514

fix bug and optimization

6fab730

refactor to support rollback

7de6518

revise based on code reveiw

894472e

remove module replacement

9fab046

register substore before get GetKVStore

3bce91e

add tests for store reverting to the last committed version

d8088a3

fix revert

c5b01e2

fix runRevert

bdc2216

change rocksdb build tag to "rocksdb"

c2b729a

badgerdb - handle ErrTxnTooBig

cf44f8b

use tempdir

fbb0546

simple test cases

0cb0404

just test badger

8cf6b45

add existing data before benchmark

19ff033

use tm-db v0.6.7 to avoid replacing gorocksdb

3593449

adu-web3 force-pushed the store_benchmarks branch from a7b40c4 to 3593449 Compare March 11, 2022 05:34

Merge branch 'master' into store_benchmarks

434ce05

peterbourgon reviewed Apr 5, 2022

View reviewed changes

peterbourgon reviewed Apr 9, 2022

View reviewed changes

tac0turtle added the WG: Store V2/SMT label May 8, 2022

tac0turtle closed this Aug 22, 2022

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

test: write benchmarks to compare performance of store v1/v2 under different load scenarios #10722

test: write benchmarks to compare performance of store v1/v2 under different load scenarios #10722

adu-web3 commented Dec 10, 2021 •

edited

Loading

adu-web3 commented Dec 10, 2021

robert-zaremba left a comment

robert-zaremba commented Dec 16, 2021

adu-web3 commented Dec 30, 2021 •

edited

Loading

tomtau left a comment

adu-web3 commented Jan 12, 2022

robert-zaremba left a comment

roysc Feb 9, 2022

robert-zaremba Feb 9, 2022 •

edited

Loading

roysc commented Feb 10, 2022 via email

robert-zaremba left a comment

roysc left a comment

adu-web3 commented Mar 11, 2022

roysc commented Mar 11, 2022

robert-zaremba commented Mar 17, 2022

roysc commented Mar 17, 2022

peterbourgon left a comment

peterbourgon Apr 5, 2022

adu-web3 Apr 8, 2022 •

edited

Loading

peterbourgon Apr 5, 2022

peterbourgon Apr 5, 2022

peterbourgon Apr 5, 2022

peterbourgon Apr 9, 2022 •

edited

Loading

alexanderbez Apr 9, 2022

tac0turtle commented Jul 13, 2022

adu-crypto commented Jul 13, 2022

tac0turtle commented Aug 22, 2022

		@@ -156,4 +154,3 @@ replace github.com/gin-gonic/gin => github.com/gin-gonic/gin v1.7.0

		replace github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/db => ./db


	replace github.com/tecbot/gorocksdb => github.com/cosmos/gorocksdb v1.2.0

test: write benchmarks to compare performance of store v1/v2 under different load scenarios #10722

test: write benchmarks to compare performance of store v1/v2 under different load scenarios #10722

Conversation

adu-web3 commented Dec 10, 2021 • edited Loading

Description

construct store v1/v2 with different percentages of Has, Get, Set, Delete operations and test the store load performance

Author Checklist

Reviewers Checklist

adu-web3 commented Dec 10, 2021

robert-zaremba left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

robert-zaremba commented Dec 16, 2021

adu-web3 commented Dec 30, 2021 • edited Loading

tomtau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

adu-web3 commented Jan 12, 2022

robert-zaremba left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

roysc Feb 9, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

robert-zaremba Feb 9, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

roysc commented Feb 10, 2022 via email

robert-zaremba left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

roysc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

adu-web3 commented Mar 11, 2022

roysc commented Mar 11, 2022

robert-zaremba commented Mar 17, 2022

roysc commented Mar 17, 2022

peterbourgon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

peterbourgon Apr 5, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

adu-web3 Apr 8, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

peterbourgon Apr 5, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

peterbourgon Apr 5, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

peterbourgon Apr 5, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

peterbourgon Apr 9, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alexanderbez Apr 9, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tac0turtle commented Jul 13, 2022

adu-crypto commented Jul 13, 2022

tac0turtle commented Aug 22, 2022

adu-web3 commented Dec 10, 2021 •

edited

Loading

adu-web3 commented Dec 30, 2021 •

edited

Loading

robert-zaremba Feb 9, 2022 •

edited

Loading

adu-web3 Apr 8, 2022 •

edited

Loading

peterbourgon Apr 9, 2022 •

edited

Loading