Event JSON
{
"id": "dcb3dc423914689dda5cdfd334faeb88b74d40ec3ea5ed53ab0edf2ee7db4818",
"pubkey": "ab8ea413dc11257cecb89a951cce015fa9cfe703535339410ee9bd6ecfe4a7bf",
"created_at": 1711196070,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"1376e4713d7d1604b2a55a5728851d734a5a370eb5d42ab039afe8b9e637e8f4",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"26fdcfc5f6ff27a9926ef372554241c70b1042094ec7749aa301091e34d17aa0",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"0042564a1b110bced46cf4c7f7554e27e03bcaaa31bcd7e09d2bd537ad6a7ac2",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://not.acu.lt/notes/9r7m9rv1p5",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:npub1zdmwgufa05tqfv49tftj3pgawd995dcwkh2z4vpe4l5tne3har6qd3g0vj Is it fair to assume that the dip of the linear access pattern is coming from the benchmarking overhead? If so, maybe the random pattern is taking into account the overhead of creating random numbers?",
"sig": "1f7b3f049618540bc5a72e0e1038074aaae555cef0df068c1fe037d6740c6b83cdef438aa5cb9c39aec1c295755471efe262e8cf4deebac935116c932b298979"
}
