-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20.5k
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
core, eth, trie: filter out boundary nodes and remove dangling nodes in stacktrie #28327
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
03e5cfa
core, eth, trie: filter out boundary nodes in stacktrie
rjl493456442 3be59e3
eth/protocol/snap: add comments
rjl493456442 c884b4d
Update trie/stacktrie.go
rjl493456442 a43ea13
eth, trie: remove onBoundary callback
rjl493456442 7e41bee
eth/protocols/snap: keep complete boundary nodes
rjl493456442 a155a06
eth/protocols/snap: skip healing if the storage trie is already complete
rjl493456442 10e4305
eth, trie: add more metrics
rjl493456442 573676a
eth, trie: address comment
rjl493456442 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Out of curiosity, would a blind delete be more expensive vs the current check-and-delete?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think
check-and-delete
is more expensive. However, the overhead is accepted, especially when we have the pebble fixed(start to use bloom filter).I don't have strong opinion, but this current approach we can expose more information to metrics(e.g. how many dangling nodes we really detect).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's a good question, and def not straight-forward answer. blind delete would put a bunch of tombstones in level0, so it's definitely not a given that it would be faster -- and if it is, it might make other parts slower due to the tombstone processing during e.g. compaction.