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

performance: Add /v2/blocks benchmark #1396

Closed

Conversation

Eric-Warehime
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

The /v2/blocks endpoint consumes a large amount of memory when handling blocks with high transactions which have large numbers of inner transactions. This benchmarks memory usage of the API when processing different variations of transactions/inner transactions from a block.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 29, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #1396 (62506df) into develop (34d18c6) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #1396   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    65.36%   65.36%           
========================================
  Files           79       79           
  Lines        11283    11283           
========================================
  Hits          7375     7375           
  Misses        3342     3342           
  Partials       566      566           

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

@jhawk28
Copy link

jhawk28 commented Jan 4, 2023

It would be useful to have a local pprof http endpoint to pull the heap.

require.NoError(b, err)
prevBlockHeader = block.BlockHeader

err = proc(&rpcs.EncodedBlockCert{Block: block})
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this test breaks after block_processor is refactored to query the state deltas.

@winder
Copy link
Contributor

winder commented Mar 1, 2023

Closing because the test would soon become obsolete. It depends on the block processor.

@winder winder closed this Mar 1, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants