feat(torii): limit number of blocks processed in one go #2505
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2505 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 67.73% 67.73%
=======================================
Files 388 388
Lines 50421 50427 +6
=======================================
+ Hits 34153 34158 +5
- Misses 16268 16269 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
lambda-0x
force-pushed
the
torii-chunk-blocks
branch
from
b17d0fd
to
17fc03d
Compare
lambda-0x
force-pushed
the
torii-chunk-blocks
branch
from
17fc03d
to
67dc049
Compare
WalkthroughOhayo, sensei! This pull request introduces a new command-line argument Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
bin/torii/src/main.rs (2)
117-119: Ohayo, sensei! New argument looks good, but let's add some spice to the docs!The new
blocks_chunk_sizeargument is a great addition! It allows users to fine-tune the indexing process. However, to make it even more user-friendly, consider adding a brief explanation of its impact on performance and memory usage in the argument's help text.Here's a suggestion to enhance the documentation:
/// Number of blocks to process before commiting to DB -#[arg(long, default_value = "10240")] +#[arg(long, default_value = "10240", help = "Number of blocks to process before committing to DB. Higher values may improve performance but increase memory usage.")] blocks_chunk_size: u64,
246-246: Ohayo again, sensei! The engine config update looks solid!The
blocks_chunk_sizeis correctly added to theEngineConfiginitialization. This ensures that the engine respects the user's preference (or the default value) for block processing.To improve code readability, consider aligning the new field with the others:
EngineConfig { max_concurrent_tasks: args.max_concurrent_tasks, start_block: 0, - blocks_chunk_size: args.blocks_chunk_size, + blocks_chunk_size: args.blocks_chunk_size, events_chunk_size: args.events_chunk_size, index_pending: args.index_pending, polling_interval: Duration::from_millis(args.polling_interval), flags, },crates/torii/core/src/engine.rs (1)
291-291: Ohayo, sensei! Let's tackle the TODO for parallelizing data fetching.Now that blocks are processed in chunks, implementing parallel data fetching could significantly improve performance.
Would you like assistance in implementing parallel fetching? I can help with code suggestions or open a GitHub issue to track this enhancement.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- bin/torii/src/main.rs (2 hunks)
- crates/torii/core/src/engine.rs (3 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (4)
bin/torii/src/main.rs (1)
246-246: Ohayo once more, sensei! Let's make sure our engine is tuned up!The
blocks_chunk_sizeconfiguration looks good, but we should verify that theEngineimplementation correctly utilizes this new parameter. This ensures that the chunked processing works as intended, maintaining data consistency and optimizing performance.Could you please run the following script to check the
Engineimplementation?This will help us confirm that the
Engineis properly implementing the chunked processing based on the newblocks_chunk_sizeparameter.✅ Verification successful
Ohayo once more, sensei! It looks like
engine.rswasn't found at the expected location. Let's broaden our search to locate the correct implementation.
Ohayo once more, sensei! The
blocks_chunk_sizeparameter is correctly utilized within theEngineimplementation. Everything looks good!🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the Engine implementation correctly uses the blocks_chunk_size parameter # Search for blocks_chunk_size usage in the Engine implementation rg --type rust 'blocks_chunk_size' crates/torii-core/src/engine.rs # Look for any methods that might be using this parameter for chunked processing rg --type rust 'fn\s+process_blocks|fn\s+index_blocks' crates/torii-core/src/engine.rsLength of output: 299
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Locate the Engine implementation and verify usage of blocks_chunk_size # Search for blocks_chunk_size usage across the entire codebase rg 'blocks_chunk_size' # Search for engine-related files in case the path has changed rg --files | rg 'engine\.rs'Length of output: 469
crates/torii/core/src/engine.rs (3)
134-134: Ohayo, sensei! Great addition ofblocks_chunk_sizetoEngineConfig.Introducing
blocks_chunk_sizeprovides better control over block processing, enhancing the engine's flexibility and scalability.
146-146: Setting defaultblocks_chunk_sizeto 10240.The default value appears reasonable for standard workloads, ensuring efficient processing without overwhelming system resources.
303-303:⚠️ Potential issuePotential off-by-one error when incrementing
from.Incrementing
fromwhen it's not zero might skip processing the block atfrom. Please verify if this behavior is intentional.Run the following script to inspect the block range calculations:
| let from = cursors.head.unwrap_or(0); | ||
| let total_remaining_blocks = latest_block_number - from; | ||
| let blocks_to_process = total_remaining_blocks.min(self.config.blocks_chunk_size); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Possible underflow risk when calculating total_remaining_blocks.
If from is greater than latest_block_number, subtracting may cause an underflow panic. Consider adding a check to handle this scenario gracefully.
Apply this change to prevent potential underflow:
let total_remaining_blocks = latest_block_number - from;
+if from > latest_block_number {
+ return Ok(FetchDataResult::None);
+}Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
Summary by CodeRabbit
blocks_chunk_sizefor configuring the number of blocks to process before committing to the database, enhancing user control over data processing.