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

Skip indexing inscriptions when below first inscription #1828

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 7, 2023

Conversation

andrewtoth
Copy link
Contributor

After #1759 we skip indexing transactions when below the first inscription height, and fetch missing inputs afterwards. However, we still try and index inscriptions below the first inscription block during --index-sats.

This PR skips transactions below the first inscription block for --index-sats as well. With this method combined with #1812 I was able to sync --index-sats in 23 hours 42 minutes.

@jorge-j1m
Copy link

Probaly unrelated, but I've noticed that block committing takes a big chunk of the time needed to build an index, I don't know enough Rust to fiddle with that myself, but I feel like being able to manipulate the "checkpoints" (i.e. specifying how many blocks to allow between index commits) from the settings would be a good improvement, for me and most of use cases I know this is just a process in a server, fairly stable, so it's not super crazy to increase that threshold. I also don't know how easy/complicated a change it is, but being able to allocate more memory to the ord process should help as well. I can't help with the development, but if you make a PR I'm happy to test and report results @andrewtoth!

@andrewtoth
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jorge-j1m I agree. There's a relevant issue https://github.com/casey/ord/issues/1630 if you want to share your thoughts there.

@raphjaph raphjaph merged commit a4ee361 into ordinals:master Mar 7, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants