1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jan@uos.de>) id 1QdhWH-0006G1-Vo
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:40:53 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from vm136.rz.uni-osnabrueck.de ([131.173.16.11]
helo=smtp-auth.serv.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE)
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1QdhWG-0003OM-G9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:40:53 +0000
Received: from msmtp-using-host (0xbcb2ab7c.ronqu1.dynamic.dsl.tele.dk
[188.178.171.124] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0)
by smtp-auth.serv.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id
p64BeheJ020138
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO)
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 4 Jul 2011 13:40:45 +0200
From: jan@uos.de
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 13:40:28 +0200
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <20110704114028.GA3369@dax.lan.local>
References: <20110623215143.GA3351@dax.lan.local>
<BANLkTi=eSgC0T_mKn660dZv1h+g-Z9TU+g@mail.gmail.com>
<20431_1309711872_p63GpBTM023936_48918.130.226.56.2.1309710545.squirrel@webmail.uni-osnabrueck.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20431_1309711872_p63GpBTM023936_48918.130.226.56.2.1309710545.squirrel@webmail.uni-osnabrueck.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379,
Antispam-Data: 2011.7.4.113314 (Univ. Osnabrueck)
X-PMX-Spam: Gauge=X, Probability=10%, Report=
TO_IN_SUBJECT 0.5, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1000_LESS 0,
BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0,
BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_900_999 0, FROM_MISSING 0,
NO_URI_FOUND 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0,
__BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CD 0, __CT 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0,
__HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0,
__SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0,
__TO_NO_NAME 0, __USER_AGENT 0
X-PMX-Spam-Level: X
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1QdhWG-0003OM-G9
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Speeding up "getbalance <account>" calls
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:40:54 -0000
Another quick update:
On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 06:29:05PM +0200, Jan Vornberger wrote:
> as now "sendfrom" starts acting up and I have to look into that
> next.
I realized why this happens: Sendfrom triggers a rebuild of the cache
and couldn't return before the rebuild was complete.
So I changed the approach slightly: A complete rebuild of the cache will
only happen on new blocks (in case reorgs happen) whereas on new wallet
transactions the cache will just be adjusted incrementally. Seems to
work fine so far (every 4000 calls or so I double check the cache by
running a full calculation and compare the results. No mismatch happened
so far). The changes are pushed to the github branch I linked to.
One caveat I realized: The cache will not work correctly with the RPC
command "move" as I haven't implemented the necessary adjustments.
Shouldn't be too difficult, but since I don't use that command, I
haven't done this (yet).
Regards!
Jan
|
