[DNM/Temp] use fast benchmark in staking election verifier#10013
Conversation
|
/cmd bench --pallet pallet_election_provider_multi_block pallet_election_provider_multi_block_signed pallet_election_provider_multi_block_verifier pallet_election_provider_multi_block_unsigned --runtime asset-hub-westend |
|
Command "bench --pallet pallet_election_provider_multi_block pallet_election_provider_multi_block_signed pallet_election_provider_multi_block_verifier pallet_election_provider_multi_block_unsigned --runtime asset-hub-westend" has started 🚀 See logs here |
…t_election_provider_multi_block pallet_election_provider_multi_block_signed pallet_election_provider_multi_block_verifier pallet_election_provider_multi_block_unsigned --runtime asset-hub-westend'
|
Command "bench --pallet pallet_election_provider_multi_block pallet_election_provider_multi_block_signed pallet_election_provider_multi_block_verifier pallet_election_provider_multi_block_unsigned --runtime asset-hub-westend" has finished ✅ See logs here DetailsSubweight results:
Command output:✅ Successful benchmarks of runtimes/pallets: |
|
I believe we should still benchmark unsigned pallet |
kianenigma
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All weight diffs look small, good.
Ah yeah, great point. Although, this benchmark is |
|
Honestly I don't like the fact that we had to use the |
…/polkadot-sdk into kiz-epmb-fast-benches-on-poll
yes, definitely so I think the quick and dirty solver is a neat approach. That said, I also agree it would be nice to be able to specify solver with more granularity |
|
gonna merge this actually after the base branch is merged, or merge it into base if being lazy. |
|
All GitHub workflows were cancelled due to failure one of the required jobs. |
On top of just to see the weight diff with different bench config
Solving issues in polkadot-fellows/runtimes#959 and polkadot-fellows/runtimes#963