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

fix!: store/cachekv: reduce growth factor for iterator ranging using binary searches #10024

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 14, 2021
Merged

fix!: store/cachekv: reduce growth factor for iterator ranging using binary searches #10024

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 14, 2021

Conversation

odeke-em
Copy link
Collaborator

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(nse) where s -- len(start), e -- len(end)
    for overall complexity of O(nse)
  • 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(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 (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
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

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...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • followed the guidelines for building modules
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • included comments for documenting Go code
  • 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 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)

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 29, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #10024 (6d57944) into master (02e3919) will decrease coverage by 0.63%.
The diff coverage is 96.66%.

❗ Current head 6d57944 differs from pull request most recent head 3ab2006. Consider uploading reports for the commit 3ab2006 to get more accurate results
Impacted file tree graph

@@            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     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
store/cachekv/store.go 89.86% <96.66%> (+7.81%) ⬆️
x/bank/types/events.go 0.00% <0.00%> (-75.00%) ⬇️
x/distribution/abci.go 0.00% <0.00%> (-68.75%) ⬇️
server/config/toml.go 20.00% <0.00%> (-56.00%) ⬇️
baseapp/state.go 0.00% <0.00%> (-50.00%) ⬇️
x/auth/middleware/index_events.go 39.28% <0.00%> (-35.72%) ⬇️
x/staking/types/genesis.go 26.08% <0.00%> (-30.44%) ⬇️
x/evidence/abci.go 0.00% <0.00%> (-30.00%) ⬇️
simapp/test_helpers.go 0.69% <0.00%> (-26.03%) ⬇️
x/staking/keeper/pool.go 61.53% <0.00%> (-25.65%) ⬇️
... and 145 more

@odeke-em odeke-em changed the title store/cachekv: reduce growth factor for iterator ranging using binary searches fix!: store/cachekv: reduce growth factor for iterator ranging using binary searches Aug 31, 2021
@odeke-em
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Alrighty, all tests pass. Please help me take a look folks.

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.

can a changelog entry be added otherwise LGTM.

@tac0turtle tac0turtle added the A:automerge Automatically merge PR once all prerequisites pass. label Oct 14, 2021
@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member

@odeke-em can you merge master, then the bot will merge this PR

@odeke-em
Copy link
Collaborator Author

can a changelog entry be added otherwise LGTM.

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 mergify bot merged commit 3c85944 into cosmos:master Oct 14, 2021
@odeke-em odeke-em deleted the store-reduce-growth-factor-by-binary-search branch October 14, 2021 21:58
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>
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>
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

![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/18161326/207636380-1c404827-cdb4-4bdc-aade-bfc0294f6cd4.png)
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
Labels
A:automerge Automatically merge PR once all prerequisites pass. C:Store
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants