Efficient way of checking and inserting array address that is unqiue
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I have a following requirement that need to be cater in dapp.
- Insert array of address
- The array need to be unique. If one of the array address already exists, reject and revert entire operation.
- dapp must able to retrieve the user address list
- dapp must able to detect if a user address exists based on a user address input
Note:
- The above requirement must be satisfied.
Full Validation checking must be done by smart contract.(cannot rely on client side checking alone).
Trying to use 3 for loop doesn't seems be a very clever way for this as it become a cost expensive operation. Unfortunately this is the only solution i can think of to satisfy above condition. Anyone have experience on dealing with this?
// probably only one of mapping or list is needed
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
// loop addressUser and check if it is unique
// loop addressUser and check if it exists in mapping
// loop and push addressUser to addressList + insert addressUser to userAddr
return true;
solidity contract-development contract-design gas arrays
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I have a following requirement that need to be cater in dapp.
- Insert array of address
- The array need to be unique. If one of the array address already exists, reject and revert entire operation.
- dapp must able to retrieve the user address list
- dapp must able to detect if a user address exists based on a user address input
Note:
- The above requirement must be satisfied.
Full Validation checking must be done by smart contract.(cannot rely on client side checking alone).
Trying to use 3 for loop doesn't seems be a very clever way for this as it become a cost expensive operation. Unfortunately this is the only solution i can think of to satisfy above condition. Anyone have experience on dealing with this?
// probably only one of mapping or list is needed
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
// loop addressUser and check if it is unique
// loop addressUser and check if it exists in mapping
// loop and push addressUser to addressList + insert addressUser to userAddr
return true;
solidity contract-development contract-design gas arrays
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I have a following requirement that need to be cater in dapp.
- Insert array of address
- The array need to be unique. If one of the array address already exists, reject and revert entire operation.
- dapp must able to retrieve the user address list
- dapp must able to detect if a user address exists based on a user address input
Note:
- The above requirement must be satisfied.
Full Validation checking must be done by smart contract.(cannot rely on client side checking alone).
Trying to use 3 for loop doesn't seems be a very clever way for this as it become a cost expensive operation. Unfortunately this is the only solution i can think of to satisfy above condition. Anyone have experience on dealing with this?
// probably only one of mapping or list is needed
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
// loop addressUser and check if it is unique
// loop addressUser and check if it exists in mapping
// loop and push addressUser to addressList + insert addressUser to userAddr
return true;
solidity contract-development contract-design gas arrays
New contributor
I have a following requirement that need to be cater in dapp.
- Insert array of address
- The array need to be unique. If one of the array address already exists, reject and revert entire operation.
- dapp must able to retrieve the user address list
- dapp must able to detect if a user address exists based on a user address input
Note:
- The above requirement must be satisfied.
Full Validation checking must be done by smart contract.(cannot rely on client side checking alone).
Trying to use 3 for loop doesn't seems be a very clever way for this as it become a cost expensive operation. Unfortunately this is the only solution i can think of to satisfy above condition. Anyone have experience on dealing with this?
// probably only one of mapping or list is needed
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
// loop addressUser and check if it is unique
// loop addressUser and check if it exists in mapping
// loop and push addressUser to addressList + insert addressUser to userAddr
return true;
solidity contract-development contract-design gas arrays
solidity contract-development contract-design gas arrays
New contributor
New contributor
edited Nov 18 at 9:13
New contributor
asked Nov 18 at 8:43
vincentsty
1414
1414
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Seeing your requirement I would do :
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
// used to check adressUser uniqueness
mapping (address => bool) memory uniq;
for(uint i = 0; i < addressUser.length, i++)
address addr = addressUser[i];
// check if addressUser is unique
require(uniq[addr] == false);
uniq[addr] = true;
// if addr is not already list
if (userAddr[addr] == false)
userAddr[addr] = true;
addressList.push(addr);
return true;
Edit:
After seeing another contract you could use the method here and require that all address are sent in increasing order. It is probably less costly in term of gas since less memory allocation.
That would do :
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
// used to check adressUser uniqueness
address lastAddr = addres(0);
for(uint i = 0; i < addressUser.length, i++)
address addr = addressUser[i];
// check if addressUser is unique
// by forcing all address to be sent
// in increasing order
require(addr > lastAddr);
lastAddr = addr;
// if addr is not already in list
if (userAddr[addr] == false)
userAddr[addr] = true;
addressList.push(addr);
return true;
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I have created contracts like this before and have seen many of the issues you are having. In short, these operations you are attempting to perform are expensive. Thus, the best way to do this is simply do it efficiently.
In order to satisfy the requirements, I would put the entire function in a loop that iterates over each address that is passed in. In order to make it as efficient as possible, you can use an if
statement to check if the address already exists. If it does, you can simply move onto the next address without performing more calculations on the current one. Depending on how you are passing in addresses, this may have huge gas savings.
As an example, you could do:
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
for (uint256 i = 0; i < addressUser.length; i++)
if (address does not exist)
push addressUser to addressList
insert addressUser to userAddr
return true;
Edit based on the new requirements
The array need to be unique. If one of the array address already exists, reject and revert entire operation.
If this is the case, then the above does not apply and what you originally had is the best way to do it.
Edit based on comments
Thinking about it logically, in order to check the array you must check every address. This requires opcodes that check each item, and you cannot get around this. After these checks are performed, you must write each item to the blockchain, which also requires opcodes for each of these. This whole process is computationally expensive, and is the reason why a lot of this logic is generally suggested off-chain.
One thing you can do is compare the hashes of the arrays (one that you are submitting and one that is being checked). You can take the keccack256
of each array in order to ensure a unique hash. You can store this hash in the smart contract and submit a hash to be checked, rather than the entire array. By doing this, you are now only performing one check, as opposed to N checks (N being the number of items in the array).
You will still be required to loop to add all the items to the smart contract, but now you have effectively removed one loop.
An example would be:
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
mapping (bytes32 => bool) public doesHashExist;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
bytes32 newHash = keccak256(addressUser);
require(!doesHashExist[newHash]);
for (uint256 i = 0; i < addressUser.length; i++)
push addressUser to addressList
insert addressUser to userAddr
doesHashExist[newHash] = True;
return true;
}
You will see that there is a new mapping that is used to store hashes that exist on the contract. The function now only does a single check (as well as a hashing) to confirm existence of the array. Finally, it saves the hash.
1
The above u array is to skip and insert non unique address which i have seen it is being practiced a lot. but the requirement for the dapp is to reject entire operation even if one of it is unique.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:03
1
Yup, i know it works, but it require at least 3 for loop (one for checking if the array pass in itself is unique, one for checking whether the array pass in have existing value, one for inserting). I am trying to look for a more cost effective way.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:06
1
The requirement must be satisfied in the smart contract itself as per the requirement. It should not be reliant on external validation. Between, is there a way to reduce 3 for loop to 2? (eg: for loop to checking array itself is unique can be checked with other more efficient way?)
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:11
1
Why would it be suggested to do offchain. Offchain validation can be bypass easily by directly calling to the smart contract function from user wallet address
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:22
1
You can take the keccak256 of each array in order to ensure a unique hash.
Didn't really understand how this will reduce one for loop.keccak256(array addressList1) === keccak256(array addressList2)
only can check if two array list is same (in terms of length, value and order of value). It cannot identified if an item of an array does exist in another array Or i misunderstand the implementation.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:31
|
show 5 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Seeing your requirement I would do :
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
// used to check adressUser uniqueness
mapping (address => bool) memory uniq;
for(uint i = 0; i < addressUser.length, i++)
address addr = addressUser[i];
// check if addressUser is unique
require(uniq[addr] == false);
uniq[addr] = true;
// if addr is not already list
if (userAddr[addr] == false)
userAddr[addr] = true;
addressList.push(addr);
return true;
Edit:
After seeing another contract you could use the method here and require that all address are sent in increasing order. It is probably less costly in term of gas since less memory allocation.
That would do :
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
// used to check adressUser uniqueness
address lastAddr = addres(0);
for(uint i = 0; i < addressUser.length, i++)
address addr = addressUser[i];
// check if addressUser is unique
// by forcing all address to be sent
// in increasing order
require(addr > lastAddr);
lastAddr = addr;
// if addr is not already in list
if (userAddr[addr] == false)
userAddr[addr] = true;
addressList.push(addr);
return true;
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Seeing your requirement I would do :
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
// used to check adressUser uniqueness
mapping (address => bool) memory uniq;
for(uint i = 0; i < addressUser.length, i++)
address addr = addressUser[i];
// check if addressUser is unique
require(uniq[addr] == false);
uniq[addr] = true;
// if addr is not already list
if (userAddr[addr] == false)
userAddr[addr] = true;
addressList.push(addr);
return true;
Edit:
After seeing another contract you could use the method here and require that all address are sent in increasing order. It is probably less costly in term of gas since less memory allocation.
That would do :
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
// used to check adressUser uniqueness
address lastAddr = addres(0);
for(uint i = 0; i < addressUser.length, i++)
address addr = addressUser[i];
// check if addressUser is unique
// by forcing all address to be sent
// in increasing order
require(addr > lastAddr);
lastAddr = addr;
// if addr is not already in list
if (userAddr[addr] == false)
userAddr[addr] = true;
addressList.push(addr);
return true;
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Seeing your requirement I would do :
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
// used to check adressUser uniqueness
mapping (address => bool) memory uniq;
for(uint i = 0; i < addressUser.length, i++)
address addr = addressUser[i];
// check if addressUser is unique
require(uniq[addr] == false);
uniq[addr] = true;
// if addr is not already list
if (userAddr[addr] == false)
userAddr[addr] = true;
addressList.push(addr);
return true;
Edit:
After seeing another contract you could use the method here and require that all address are sent in increasing order. It is probably less costly in term of gas since less memory allocation.
That would do :
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
// used to check adressUser uniqueness
address lastAddr = addres(0);
for(uint i = 0; i < addressUser.length, i++)
address addr = addressUser[i];
// check if addressUser is unique
// by forcing all address to be sent
// in increasing order
require(addr > lastAddr);
lastAddr = addr;
// if addr is not already in list
if (userAddr[addr] == false)
userAddr[addr] = true;
addressList.push(addr);
return true;
Seeing your requirement I would do :
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
// used to check adressUser uniqueness
mapping (address => bool) memory uniq;
for(uint i = 0; i < addressUser.length, i++)
address addr = addressUser[i];
// check if addressUser is unique
require(uniq[addr] == false);
uniq[addr] = true;
// if addr is not already list
if (userAddr[addr] == false)
userAddr[addr] = true;
addressList.push(addr);
return true;
Edit:
After seeing another contract you could use the method here and require that all address are sent in increasing order. It is probably less costly in term of gas since less memory allocation.
That would do :
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
// used to check adressUser uniqueness
address lastAddr = addres(0);
for(uint i = 0; i < addressUser.length, i++)
address addr = addressUser[i];
// check if addressUser is unique
// by forcing all address to be sent
// in increasing order
require(addr > lastAddr);
lastAddr = addr;
// if addr is not already in list
if (userAddr[addr] == false)
userAddr[addr] = true;
addressList.push(addr);
return true;
edited 2 days ago
answered Nov 18 at 10:23
dievardump
1364
1364
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I have created contracts like this before and have seen many of the issues you are having. In short, these operations you are attempting to perform are expensive. Thus, the best way to do this is simply do it efficiently.
In order to satisfy the requirements, I would put the entire function in a loop that iterates over each address that is passed in. In order to make it as efficient as possible, you can use an if
statement to check if the address already exists. If it does, you can simply move onto the next address without performing more calculations on the current one. Depending on how you are passing in addresses, this may have huge gas savings.
As an example, you could do:
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
for (uint256 i = 0; i < addressUser.length; i++)
if (address does not exist)
push addressUser to addressList
insert addressUser to userAddr
return true;
Edit based on the new requirements
The array need to be unique. If one of the array address already exists, reject and revert entire operation.
If this is the case, then the above does not apply and what you originally had is the best way to do it.
Edit based on comments
Thinking about it logically, in order to check the array you must check every address. This requires opcodes that check each item, and you cannot get around this. After these checks are performed, you must write each item to the blockchain, which also requires opcodes for each of these. This whole process is computationally expensive, and is the reason why a lot of this logic is generally suggested off-chain.
One thing you can do is compare the hashes of the arrays (one that you are submitting and one that is being checked). You can take the keccack256
of each array in order to ensure a unique hash. You can store this hash in the smart contract and submit a hash to be checked, rather than the entire array. By doing this, you are now only performing one check, as opposed to N checks (N being the number of items in the array).
You will still be required to loop to add all the items to the smart contract, but now you have effectively removed one loop.
An example would be:
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
mapping (bytes32 => bool) public doesHashExist;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
bytes32 newHash = keccak256(addressUser);
require(!doesHashExist[newHash]);
for (uint256 i = 0; i < addressUser.length; i++)
push addressUser to addressList
insert addressUser to userAddr
doesHashExist[newHash] = True;
return true;
}
You will see that there is a new mapping that is used to store hashes that exist on the contract. The function now only does a single check (as well as a hashing) to confirm existence of the array. Finally, it saves the hash.
1
The above u array is to skip and insert non unique address which i have seen it is being practiced a lot. but the requirement for the dapp is to reject entire operation even if one of it is unique.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:03
1
Yup, i know it works, but it require at least 3 for loop (one for checking if the array pass in itself is unique, one for checking whether the array pass in have existing value, one for inserting). I am trying to look for a more cost effective way.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:06
1
The requirement must be satisfied in the smart contract itself as per the requirement. It should not be reliant on external validation. Between, is there a way to reduce 3 for loop to 2? (eg: for loop to checking array itself is unique can be checked with other more efficient way?)
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:11
1
Why would it be suggested to do offchain. Offchain validation can be bypass easily by directly calling to the smart contract function from user wallet address
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:22
1
You can take the keccak256 of each array in order to ensure a unique hash.
Didn't really understand how this will reduce one for loop.keccak256(array addressList1) === keccak256(array addressList2)
only can check if two array list is same (in terms of length, value and order of value). It cannot identified if an item of an array does exist in another array Or i misunderstand the implementation.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:31
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
I have created contracts like this before and have seen many of the issues you are having. In short, these operations you are attempting to perform are expensive. Thus, the best way to do this is simply do it efficiently.
In order to satisfy the requirements, I would put the entire function in a loop that iterates over each address that is passed in. In order to make it as efficient as possible, you can use an if
statement to check if the address already exists. If it does, you can simply move onto the next address without performing more calculations on the current one. Depending on how you are passing in addresses, this may have huge gas savings.
As an example, you could do:
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
for (uint256 i = 0; i < addressUser.length; i++)
if (address does not exist)
push addressUser to addressList
insert addressUser to userAddr
return true;
Edit based on the new requirements
The array need to be unique. If one of the array address already exists, reject and revert entire operation.
If this is the case, then the above does not apply and what you originally had is the best way to do it.
Edit based on comments
Thinking about it logically, in order to check the array you must check every address. This requires opcodes that check each item, and you cannot get around this. After these checks are performed, you must write each item to the blockchain, which also requires opcodes for each of these. This whole process is computationally expensive, and is the reason why a lot of this logic is generally suggested off-chain.
One thing you can do is compare the hashes of the arrays (one that you are submitting and one that is being checked). You can take the keccack256
of each array in order to ensure a unique hash. You can store this hash in the smart contract and submit a hash to be checked, rather than the entire array. By doing this, you are now only performing one check, as opposed to N checks (N being the number of items in the array).
You will still be required to loop to add all the items to the smart contract, but now you have effectively removed one loop.
An example would be:
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
mapping (bytes32 => bool) public doesHashExist;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
bytes32 newHash = keccak256(addressUser);
require(!doesHashExist[newHash]);
for (uint256 i = 0; i < addressUser.length; i++)
push addressUser to addressList
insert addressUser to userAddr
doesHashExist[newHash] = True;
return true;
}
You will see that there is a new mapping that is used to store hashes that exist on the contract. The function now only does a single check (as well as a hashing) to confirm existence of the array. Finally, it saves the hash.
1
The above u array is to skip and insert non unique address which i have seen it is being practiced a lot. but the requirement for the dapp is to reject entire operation even if one of it is unique.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:03
1
Yup, i know it works, but it require at least 3 for loop (one for checking if the array pass in itself is unique, one for checking whether the array pass in have existing value, one for inserting). I am trying to look for a more cost effective way.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:06
1
The requirement must be satisfied in the smart contract itself as per the requirement. It should not be reliant on external validation. Between, is there a way to reduce 3 for loop to 2? (eg: for loop to checking array itself is unique can be checked with other more efficient way?)
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:11
1
Why would it be suggested to do offchain. Offchain validation can be bypass easily by directly calling to the smart contract function from user wallet address
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:22
1
You can take the keccak256 of each array in order to ensure a unique hash.
Didn't really understand how this will reduce one for loop.keccak256(array addressList1) === keccak256(array addressList2)
only can check if two array list is same (in terms of length, value and order of value). It cannot identified if an item of an array does exist in another array Or i misunderstand the implementation.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:31
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I have created contracts like this before and have seen many of the issues you are having. In short, these operations you are attempting to perform are expensive. Thus, the best way to do this is simply do it efficiently.
In order to satisfy the requirements, I would put the entire function in a loop that iterates over each address that is passed in. In order to make it as efficient as possible, you can use an if
statement to check if the address already exists. If it does, you can simply move onto the next address without performing more calculations on the current one. Depending on how you are passing in addresses, this may have huge gas savings.
As an example, you could do:
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
for (uint256 i = 0; i < addressUser.length; i++)
if (address does not exist)
push addressUser to addressList
insert addressUser to userAddr
return true;
Edit based on the new requirements
The array need to be unique. If one of the array address already exists, reject and revert entire operation.
If this is the case, then the above does not apply and what you originally had is the best way to do it.
Edit based on comments
Thinking about it logically, in order to check the array you must check every address. This requires opcodes that check each item, and you cannot get around this. After these checks are performed, you must write each item to the blockchain, which also requires opcodes for each of these. This whole process is computationally expensive, and is the reason why a lot of this logic is generally suggested off-chain.
One thing you can do is compare the hashes of the arrays (one that you are submitting and one that is being checked). You can take the keccack256
of each array in order to ensure a unique hash. You can store this hash in the smart contract and submit a hash to be checked, rather than the entire array. By doing this, you are now only performing one check, as opposed to N checks (N being the number of items in the array).
You will still be required to loop to add all the items to the smart contract, but now you have effectively removed one loop.
An example would be:
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
mapping (bytes32 => bool) public doesHashExist;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
bytes32 newHash = keccak256(addressUser);
require(!doesHashExist[newHash]);
for (uint256 i = 0; i < addressUser.length; i++)
push addressUser to addressList
insert addressUser to userAddr
doesHashExist[newHash] = True;
return true;
}
You will see that there is a new mapping that is used to store hashes that exist on the contract. The function now only does a single check (as well as a hashing) to confirm existence of the array. Finally, it saves the hash.
I have created contracts like this before and have seen many of the issues you are having. In short, these operations you are attempting to perform are expensive. Thus, the best way to do this is simply do it efficiently.
In order to satisfy the requirements, I would put the entire function in a loop that iterates over each address that is passed in. In order to make it as efficient as possible, you can use an if
statement to check if the address already exists. If it does, you can simply move onto the next address without performing more calculations on the current one. Depending on how you are passing in addresses, this may have huge gas savings.
As an example, you could do:
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
for (uint256 i = 0; i < addressUser.length; i++)
if (address does not exist)
push addressUser to addressList
insert addressUser to userAddr
return true;
Edit based on the new requirements
The array need to be unique. If one of the array address already exists, reject and revert entire operation.
If this is the case, then the above does not apply and what you originally had is the best way to do it.
Edit based on comments
Thinking about it logically, in order to check the array you must check every address. This requires opcodes that check each item, and you cannot get around this. After these checks are performed, you must write each item to the blockchain, which also requires opcodes for each of these. This whole process is computationally expensive, and is the reason why a lot of this logic is generally suggested off-chain.
One thing you can do is compare the hashes of the arrays (one that you are submitting and one that is being checked). You can take the keccack256
of each array in order to ensure a unique hash. You can store this hash in the smart contract and submit a hash to be checked, rather than the entire array. By doing this, you are now only performing one check, as opposed to N checks (N being the number of items in the array).
You will still be required to loop to add all the items to the smart contract, but now you have effectively removed one loop.
An example would be:
address public addressList;
mapping (address => bool) public userAddr;
mapping (bytes32 => bool) public doesHashExist;
function insertAddress(address addressUser) public returns (bool)
bytes32 newHash = keccak256(addressUser);
require(!doesHashExist[newHash]);
for (uint256 i = 0; i < addressUser.length; i++)
push addressUser to addressList
insert addressUser to userAddr
doesHashExist[newHash] = True;
return true;
}
You will see that there is a new mapping that is used to store hashes that exist on the contract. The function now only does a single check (as well as a hashing) to confirm existence of the array. Finally, it saves the hash.
edited Nov 18 at 9:39
answered Nov 18 at 8:56
shane
1,6192530
1,6192530
1
The above u array is to skip and insert non unique address which i have seen it is being practiced a lot. but the requirement for the dapp is to reject entire operation even if one of it is unique.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:03
1
Yup, i know it works, but it require at least 3 for loop (one for checking if the array pass in itself is unique, one for checking whether the array pass in have existing value, one for inserting). I am trying to look for a more cost effective way.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:06
1
The requirement must be satisfied in the smart contract itself as per the requirement. It should not be reliant on external validation. Between, is there a way to reduce 3 for loop to 2? (eg: for loop to checking array itself is unique can be checked with other more efficient way?)
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:11
1
Why would it be suggested to do offchain. Offchain validation can be bypass easily by directly calling to the smart contract function from user wallet address
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:22
1
You can take the keccak256 of each array in order to ensure a unique hash.
Didn't really understand how this will reduce one for loop.keccak256(array addressList1) === keccak256(array addressList2)
only can check if two array list is same (in terms of length, value and order of value). It cannot identified if an item of an array does exist in another array Or i misunderstand the implementation.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:31
|
show 5 more comments
1
The above u array is to skip and insert non unique address which i have seen it is being practiced a lot. but the requirement for the dapp is to reject entire operation even if one of it is unique.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:03
1
Yup, i know it works, but it require at least 3 for loop (one for checking if the array pass in itself is unique, one for checking whether the array pass in have existing value, one for inserting). I am trying to look for a more cost effective way.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:06
1
The requirement must be satisfied in the smart contract itself as per the requirement. It should not be reliant on external validation. Between, is there a way to reduce 3 for loop to 2? (eg: for loop to checking array itself is unique can be checked with other more efficient way?)
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:11
1
Why would it be suggested to do offchain. Offchain validation can be bypass easily by directly calling to the smart contract function from user wallet address
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:22
1
You can take the keccak256 of each array in order to ensure a unique hash.
Didn't really understand how this will reduce one for loop.keccak256(array addressList1) === keccak256(array addressList2)
only can check if two array list is same (in terms of length, value and order of value). It cannot identified if an item of an array does exist in another array Or i misunderstand the implementation.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:31
1
1
The above u array is to skip and insert non unique address which i have seen it is being practiced a lot. but the requirement for the dapp is to reject entire operation even if one of it is unique.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:03
The above u array is to skip and insert non unique address which i have seen it is being practiced a lot. but the requirement for the dapp is to reject entire operation even if one of it is unique.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:03
1
1
Yup, i know it works, but it require at least 3 for loop (one for checking if the array pass in itself is unique, one for checking whether the array pass in have existing value, one for inserting). I am trying to look for a more cost effective way.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:06
Yup, i know it works, but it require at least 3 for loop (one for checking if the array pass in itself is unique, one for checking whether the array pass in have existing value, one for inserting). I am trying to look for a more cost effective way.
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:06
1
1
The requirement must be satisfied in the smart contract itself as per the requirement. It should not be reliant on external validation. Between, is there a way to reduce 3 for loop to 2? (eg: for loop to checking array itself is unique can be checked with other more efficient way?)
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:11
The requirement must be satisfied in the smart contract itself as per the requirement. It should not be reliant on external validation. Between, is there a way to reduce 3 for loop to 2? (eg: for loop to checking array itself is unique can be checked with other more efficient way?)
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:11
1
1
Why would it be suggested to do offchain. Offchain validation can be bypass easily by directly calling to the smart contract function from user wallet address
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:22
Why would it be suggested to do offchain. Offchain validation can be bypass easily by directly calling to the smart contract function from user wallet address
– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:22
1
1
You can take the keccak256 of each array in order to ensure a unique hash.
Didn't really understand how this will reduce one for loop. keccak256(array addressList1) === keccak256(array addressList2)
only can check if two array list is same (in terms of length, value and order of value). It cannot identified if an item of an array does exist in another array Or i misunderstand the implementation.– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:31
You can take the keccak256 of each array in order to ensure a unique hash.
Didn't really understand how this will reduce one for loop. keccak256(array addressList1) === keccak256(array addressList2)
only can check if two array list is same (in terms of length, value and order of value). It cannot identified if an item of an array does exist in another array Or i misunderstand the implementation.– vincentsty
Nov 18 at 9:31
|
show 5 more comments
vincentsty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
vincentsty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
vincentsty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
vincentsty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fethereum.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62572%2fefficient-way-of-checking-and-inserting-array-address-that-is-unqiue%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown