Cluster mempool tracking issue #30289

1. 
   sipa commented at 1:21 pm on June 14, 2024: member

   What to review next:

   • #34023

   ---

   Plan:

   • Lowest level: generic utilities:
     • #29242 FeeFrac type
       • #30535 Add FeeFrac::EvaluateFee
         • #32240 Fix integer overflow in FeeFrac fuzz test
         • #32300 Fix different overflow in FeeFrac fuzz test
     • #30160 BitSet type
     • #30161 VecDeque type
   • Low level: operations on DepGraph type (dependencies/linearizations for a single cluster)
     • #30126 Base linearization algorithm
       • #30605 Split tests from tests-of-tests
       • #30857 Extend DepGraph functionality
     • #30285 Merging and postprocessing of linearizations
     • #30286 Optimized candidate search
     • #32545 Replace linearization with SFL
       • #34023 SFL optimizations
       • #34138 SFL cost model
   • Intermediate level: operations on TxGraph type (dependencies/linearizations for the entire mempool)
     • #31363 TxGraph basics
       • #32151 TxGraph basics follow-up
       • #32177 TxGraph increase fuzz coverage
       • #32191 Make TxGraph fuzzing more deterministic
         • #33335 Randomize order of transactions
       • #33354 Use enum Level instead of bool main_only
       • #33862 Drop support for TxGraph::Ref move assignment
     • #31444 TxGraph mining/eviction
       • #33469 Use std::unordered_set for skipped clusters
     • #31553 TxGraph reorgs
     • #32263 TxGraph work controls
     • #33157 TxGraph memory usage
     • #34085 TxGraph exploiting SFL better
   • High level: changes to mempool/validation
     • #31122 Changesets for mempool
     • #33629 Cluster mempool implementation
       • #28676 Old version
     • #33591 Cluster mempool optimizations and cleanups
2. glozow referenced this in commit 37bd70a225 on Jul 26, 2024
3. ?
   added_to_project_v2 glozow
4. ?
   project_v2_item_status_changed glozow
5. glozow referenced this in commit bba01ba18d on Aug 5, 2024
6. ?
   removed_from_project_v2 achow101
7. glozow referenced this in commit c38e9993de on Sep 16, 2024
8. glozow referenced this in commit 489e5aa3a2 on Oct 10, 2024
9. glozow referenced this in commit f34fe0806a on Nov 20, 2024
10. 
    summraznboi commented at 8:00 am on December 4, 2024: none

    Wow, no ancestor/descendant limit would be great for unblocking UX hurdles in creating transactions! (Commenting to watch, also curious how someone like myself could help out here).

    Edit: I see, this is going to be replaced with a cluster size limitation instead. What’s the order of magnitude in which this number could be increased up to?

11. 
    sipa commented at 3:04 pm on December 12, 2024: member

    @summraznboi We are thinking of a cluster size limit of 50 or 64, depending on benchmarks when the full code is done. The limit is set by how fast we can run the basic cluster linearization algorithm (ancestor sort, chunking, post-processing, …) quickly enough to run it at transaction relay time (taking into account that a single transaction may affect many clusters).
12. glozow referenced this in commit f1d129d963 on Mar 26, 2025
13. glozow referenced this in commit 247e9de622 on Apr 17, 2025
14. glozow referenced this in commit c9ab10910c on May 13, 2025
15. glozow referenced this in commit 87ab69155d on Jul 7, 2025
16. glozow referenced this in commit 5ef0d4897b on Jul 10, 2025
17. glozow referenced this in commit 2f410ad78c on Jul 29, 2025
18. glozow referenced this in commit 593d5fe37d on Sep 11, 2025
19. glozow added the label Tracking Issue on Oct 9, 2025
20. glozow referenced this in commit fdcf67de80 on Oct 14, 2025
21. fanquake added this to the milestone 31.0 on Nov 25, 2025
22. fanquake referenced this in commit 0c862bc7ea on Dec 19, 2025
23. fanquake referenced this in commit c60f9cb66e on Jan 6, 2026

Contributors
sipa summraznboi

Labels
Tracking Issue

Milestone
31.0