You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We currently just allocate dyadic_circuit_size/2 size for all of the polynomials (including shifted ones!) during sumcheck, which is a huge amount of memory. In ClientIVC, we don't really care about this memory too much because its basically overshadowed by folding, which has 2 instances. However, for UltraHonk, sumcheck still is one of the peaks we care about. With lazy commitment key allocation, it no longer becomes the highest peak, but its still something to keep in mind in case it's a problem in WASM and it's possible that avoiding full polynomial allocations saves a little bit of time.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We currently just allocate dyadic_circuit_size/2 size for all of the polynomials (including shifted ones!) during sumcheck, which is a huge amount of memory. In ClientIVC, we don't really care about this memory too much because its basically overshadowed by folding, which has 2 instances. However, for UltraHonk, sumcheck still is one of the peaks we care about. With lazy commitment key allocation, it no longer becomes the highest peak, but its still something to keep in mind in case it's a problem in WASM and it's possible that avoiding full polynomial allocations saves a little bit of time.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: