Closed
Conversation
twoeths
commented
Dec 2, 2020
| readonly previousShuffling?: IReadonlyEpochShuffling; | ||
| getBeaconProposer: (slot: Slot) => ValidatorIndex; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
2ee6ec0 to
6538e0c
Compare
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit 6538e0c and detected 0 issues on this pull request. View more on Code Climate. |
Contributor
Author
|
replaced by #1925 |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
resolves #1789
Goal
validatorsinsideTreeBackedstructure takes a significant timevalidatorsarray after the 1st loop, use it in lodestar-state-transition only. Note that when processing epoch, we always have to do the loop to prepare EpochProcess.TreeBacked<BeaconState>validatorsif we have itTrade off
setValidator,addValidator,getValidatorapi in state transition instead of accessingvalidatorsdirectly. I guess we can enforce it at compile time usingOmit<BeaconState, "validators">or something if we want to.Performance gain with 100k validators as in Pyrmont/Medalla
Test
Memory
Although the performance is improved, I'd like to have everyone review to see if we have any potential issues with this approach. Thanks!