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

CIP-0132? | New Plutus Builtin DropList #767

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
117 changes: 117 additions & 0 deletions CIP-0132/README.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
---
CIP: 132
Title: New Plutus Builtin dropList
Status: Proposed
Category: Plutus
Authors:
- Philip DiSarro <info@anastasialabs.com>
Implementors: []
Discussions:
- https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/767
Created: 2024-02-25
License: CC-BY-4.0
---

## Abstract
This document describes the addition of a new Plutus builtin `dropList` with the signature `Integer -> List a -> List a` that drops a given number of elements the list. This drastically increases the efficiency of `elemAt` which is currently a huge throughput bottleneck for many DApps.

## Motivation: why is this CIP necessary?
The deterministic script evaluation property of the ledger (also stated as "script interpreter arguments are fixed") is a unique characteristic of the Cardano ledger that allows us to perform powerful optimizations that are not possible in systems with indeterminstic script evaluation. For instance, searching for elements in a data structure can
be done entirely off-chain, and then we simply provide the onchain code with the index (via redeemer) to where the element we want to find is supposed to be, and then check (onchain) that it is indeed the element we were expecting. This design pattern of passing the indices of elements required for validation logic in the redeemer is commonly referred to as redeemer-indexing.
Even though it is still a very powerful optimization in its current state, it is currently bottlenecked by the lack of a builtin that applies tail a given number of times to a list. Currently, any implementation of `elemAt :: Integer -> List a -> a` or `drop` requires the use of the fixed point combinator (Y combinator) which has a significant cost in onchain code.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just to nitpick, it's the Z combinator, not Y.


Consider the naive approach:
```haskell
{- | Fixpoint recursion. Used to encode recursive functions.
Hopefully this illustrates the overhead that this incurs.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The fact that it looks big does not mean that it's inefficient. We've benchmarked various ways to get recursion in Haskell (sic), the Z combinator is about on par with direct recursion. This doesn't translate to UPLC of course (since UPLC doesn't even have direct recursion), but my point is that it's very non-obvious how your Haskell code snippet illustrates any overhead.

The inefficiency comes from evaluating more things on the Plutus side than on the Haskell side. All those # are going to be evaluated in Plutus and if those were $ in Haskell instead, they'd be much more efficient -- and that is where the overhead arises from. Plus the fact that you currently need 3 builtin calls per element to implement dropList in Plutus and those are expensive.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I included that to illustrate how inefficient it is specifically in ex-unit terms, and as you said most of that cost comes from all those function applications that are invoked. Yes though, I agree that it only accounts for a small portion of the budget and most of the cost comes from the actual content of each recursive call.

-}
pfix :: Term s (((a :--> b) :--> a :--> b) :--> a :--> b)
pfix = phoistAcyclic $
punsafeCoerce $
plam' $ \f ->
plam' (\(x :: Term s POpaque) -> f # plam' (\(v :: Term s POpaque) -> punsafeCoerce x # x # v))
# punsafeCoerce (plam' $ \(x :: Term s POpaque) -> f # plam' (\(v :: Term s POpaque) -> punsafeCoerce x # x # v))

-- | Lazy if-then-else
-- Two forces + two delays + builtinIfThenElse
pif :: Term s PBool -> Term s a -> Term s a -> Term s a
pif b case_true case_false = pforce $ (pforce $ punsafeBuiltin PLC.IfThenElse) # b # pdelay (f PTrue) # pdelay (f PFalse)
where
f = \case
PTrue -> case_true
PFalse -> case_false
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not just inline case_true and case_false instead of using f PTrue and f PFalse?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In Plutarch you can think of Haskell level work as a sort of pre-compilation step. The above would actually be inlined when compiled, because f or \case (a Haskell level function) is used on PTrue (a Haskell level argument), this would become:
pif b case_true case_false = pforce $ (pforce $ punsafeBuiltin PLC.IfThenElse) # b # pdelay case_true # pdelay case_false

after the pre-compilation step. I have edited it for clarity though.


pelemAt' :: PIsListLike l a => Term s (PInteger :--> l a :--> a)
pelemAt' = phoistAcyclic $
pfix #$ plam $ \self n xs ->
pif
(n #== 0)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This loops on negative integers (I understand that this snippet is for illustration purposes only, but I'll still leave this comment).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Intended behavior is to error on negative integers anyway, in this case looping is a more efficient way to achieve that because looping results in a script failure from ex-unit budget exceeding and we don't need to waste a check for n > 0 in the happy path. The only case this isn't more efficient is if the script will fail anyway, and in that case we don't care.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's a really good point, thanks!

(phead # xs)
(self # (n - 1) #$ ptail # xs)

pelemAt' # 5 # (pconstant [1,2,3,4,5])
-- the function `self` must be passed as an argument to each recursive call.
-- each recursive call results in:
-- uplc Apply operations to apply the arguments `n` and `xs` to `self`
-- lazy ifThenElse (two forces + two delays + builtinIfThenElse)
-- builtinEqualsInteger
-- builtinSubtractInteger
-- uplc Apply operations to apply the arguments (including `self`, `n` and `xs`) to the fixed-point recursive function
```
As you can see, the naive `elemAt` implementation is quite inefficient. This is a huge efficiency bottleneck for many DApps which use `elemAt` many times to locate elements at indices specified in the redeemer. In an attempt to address this, many protocols use the following heuristic optimization (where the number of skips is determined through trial and error based on the DApps throughput in testing):
```
pelemAtFast :: PIsListLike l a => Term s (PInteger :--> l a :--> a)
pelemAtFast = phoistAcyclic $
pfix #$ plam $ \self n xs ->
pif
(n #> 10)
(self # (n - 1) #$ ptail #$ ptail #$ ptail #$ ptail #$ ptail #$ ptail #$ ptail #$ ptail #$ ptail #$ ptail # xs)
(pif
(n #> 5)
(self # (n - 5) #$ ptail #$ ptail #$ ptail #$ ptail #$ ptail # xs)
(pif (n #== 0) (phead # xs) (pelemAt' # (n - 1) # (ptail # xs))))
```
This drastically reduces the amount of recursion we have to do which greatly increases the efficiency of this function in practice. However, it should be clear to see that there is still a huge degree of inefficiency in this implementation. Also it is difficulty to determine the correct magic numbers to skip, and the performance
varies drastically depending on the cut-off values chosen for `n` as-well as the number of different skip-cases (in this case we have skip cases for both `n > 10` and `n > 5`).

## Specification

### Function definition
We define a new Plutus built-in function with the following type signature:
```haskell
builtinDropList :: BuiltinInteger -> BuiltinList a -> BuiltinList a
```

Similar to the behavior of the `indexOfByteString` builtin, this new builtin will simply error if the provided index is out of bounds for the list.


### Cost Model
Although the `BuiltinList` type is a recursive data-type, costing should be relatively straightforward.
We propose to define a cost model linear in the size of `n`, the number of elements to drop. What remains is to find a proper coefficient and offset for that linear model, which should be quite easy.


## Rationale: how does this CIP achieve its goals?
* Easy to implement as it reuses existing code of the Plutus codebase;
* The built-in is generic enough to cover a wider set of use-cases;
* The built-in is still relevant even if we get constant lookup index data-structures since there are occasions where BuiltinList would be preferred;
* This directly addresses the big performance bottleneck that the fixed-point recursion implementation of `elemAt` and `drop` impose on many DApps;

### Alternatives

- We could decide to accept the heuristic `elemAtFast` implementation as as an adequate solution.
- We could provide a more generic builtin that applies a function recursively `n` times (seems complicated and bad idea).
- We could try to reduce the overhead introduced by aspects of the `elemAt` by making the language / compiler more performant (still can't imagine we would be able to get anywhere near the performance of this builtin).

## Path to Active

### Acceptance Criteria
- [] Fully implemented in Cardano.

### Implementation Plan
- [] Passes all requirements of both Plutus and Ledger teams as agreed to improve Plutus script efficiency and usability.

## Copyright
This CIP is licensed under [CC-BY-4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode).

[CC-BY-4.0]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
[Apache-2.0]: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0