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

bench: Amend mempool_eviction test for witness txs #13013

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 24, 2018

Conversation

maflcko
Copy link
Member

@maflcko maflcko commented Apr 17, 2018

No description provided.

@maflcko maflcko added the Tests label Apr 17, 2018
@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Apr 18, 2018

Makes sense - utACK fa3bb18

@maflcko
Copy link
Member Author

maflcko commented Apr 18, 2018

Just for reference a plot of the benchmark results:

  • The first commit (which obviously makes the loop faster by moving stuff out)
  • The second commit (which makes slower due to witness)
  • tag of version 0.16.0 for reference

mempooleviction

@maflcko
Copy link
Member Author

maflcko commented Apr 24, 2018

@ryanofsky Any notes here, since you wrote the initial benchmark?

Copy link
Contributor

@ryanofsky ryanofsky left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

utACK fa3bb18. I believe original benchmark was mostly a copy and paste of other test code.

@maflcko maflcko merged commit fa3bb18 into bitcoin:master Apr 24, 2018
maflcko pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 24, 2018
fa3bb18 bench: Amend mempool_eviction test for witness txs (MarcoFalke)
962d223 bench: Move constructors out of mempool_eviction hot loop (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

Tree-SHA512: 997a07e067623bc2c0904a21bd490d164045cf51393af260fc79882ed010636dce82c9ebe35aae8fa5db5e73c9f3ecb6232353a0939c295034f9be574f1fcff2
@maflcko maflcko deleted the Mf1804-benchWitnessMempool branch April 24, 2018 17:28
@bitcoin bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 8, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants