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

[testing] feat: integrate mp2 batch queries feature #129

Open
wants to merge 14 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

silathdiir
Copy link
Contributor

@silathdiir silathdiir commented Dec 9, 2024

CRY-15

Related distributed-query PR #973

TODO

  • Test with the related distributed-query PR #973 on colberg.
  • Test on dev1.

@silathdiir silathdiir marked this pull request as draft December 9, 2024 09:30
@silathdiir silathdiir force-pushed the batch-queries-integration branch 5 times, most recently from deb12f2 to 0d1dac6 Compare December 13, 2024 09:19
@silathdiir silathdiir force-pushed the batch-queries-integration branch from 0d1dac6 to 1e56b5e Compare December 13, 2024 09:31
@silathdiir silathdiir changed the title [WIP] feat: integrate mp2 batch queries feature [testing] feat: integrate mp2 batch queries feature Dec 13, 2024
@silathdiir silathdiir marked this pull request as ready for review December 13, 2024 10:23
Copy link
Contributor

@delehef delehef left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Minor details, otherwise looks good.

AFAIU, NUM_CHUNKS and NUM_ROWS need to be kept in sync between QE & Worker, but not with MP2, right?

lgn-messages/src/types/v1/query/keys.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lgn-messages/src/types/v1/query/keys.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lgn-messages/src/types/v1/query/mod.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
lgn-messages/src/types/v1/query/tasks.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@silathdiir silathdiir requested a review from delehef December 13, 2024 15:33
Comment on lines 23 to 36
"contract",
"node-bindings",
"providers",
"network",
"signer-local",
"sol-types",
"rpc",
"rpc-types",
"consensus",
"rlp",
"transports",
"transport-http",
"reqwest",
] }
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we really need all these features ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, I fix to delete the useless alloy features in commit 0e7109b.

) -> anyhow::Result<Vec<u8>>
{
Ok(dummy_proof(PROOF_SIZE))
}

fn prove_single_path_branch(
fn prove_non_existence(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I dont think this one needs to exists anymore ? Non existence is just providing one input like any other no ? @nicholas-mainardi

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For rows tree with no matching rows yes, but we still have a circuit to prove non existence of nodes in the index tree. I suppose that this variant refers to this circuit?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This corresponds to the non-existence proving logic in the batching queries integration test.

@silathdiir silathdiir requested a review from nikkolasg December 20, 2024 13:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants