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

Speedup protorev by having route calculation phase not unmarshal pools (backport #8157) #8164

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 29, 2024

Conversation

mergify[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@mergify mergify bot commented Apr 29, 2024

What is the purpose of the change

This is an expected .7% speedup to block syncing. It works by having protorev not unmarshal every pool in route cost estimation phase. It is state breaking due to gas differences.

Testing and Verifying

This adds a test to ensure that the new GetPoolType method returns a deterministic amount of gas.

Documentation and Release Note

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature or user-facing behavior changes? - NO
  • Changelog entry added to Unreleased section of CHANGELOG.md? - Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced pool information retrieval by introducing a method to retrieve pool types.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Improved pool type comparison logic for accurate pool information processing.
  • Documentation

    • Updated CHANGELOG to reflect efficiency improvements in data handling during cost estimation.
  • Tests

    • Added tests to ensure consistency in gas consumption for new pool type retrieval functionality.

This is an automatic backport of pull request #8157 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com).

#8157)

* Another expected ~1% state machine speedup

* Add changelog

* minor other improvement

* Reduce addr decoding overhead

(cherry picked from commit 64a9078)
@PaddyMc PaddyMc merged commit a969e10 into v25.x Apr 29, 2024
1 check passed
@PaddyMc PaddyMc deleted the mergify/bp/v25.x/pr-8157 branch April 29, 2024 10:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants