I've used Mapping, BTreeSet, BTreeMap and Vec for various purposes in our ink contract and have observed the contract size fluctuating based on usage of these four data structures. This leads me to the question of what data structures are best in regards to reducing contract size?

We currently have a 128KB contract size limit which I have hit many times now.

1 Answer 1


I've done a bunch of benchmarking here. This takes an empty ink contract and adds data structures to the contract storage, observing the change in contract size under debug and release conditions. Here's an excerpt:


Takeaways (from release contract size):

  • an empty contract is 0.8KB

Importing (i.e. 1 use of the data structure in the contract storage)

  • importing Vec is 2KB
  • importing BTreeSet is 8.3KB
  • importing BTreeMap is 9.1KB
  • importing BTreeMap and BTreeSet is 16.1KB, which is less than their combined sizes so there is some shared code here
  • a single Mapping takes 0.5KB

Additional (i.e. 2 uses of the data structure in the contract storage)

  • adding another Vec adds 2.3KB
  • adding another BTreeSet adds 0.4KB
  • adding another BTreeMap adds 0.5KB, so BTreeMap is slightly heavier than BTreeSet
  • adding another Mapping takes 0.6KB

As the value type of Mapping (on top of the 0.5KB for a Mapping in the first place) (e.g. Mapping<AccountId, BTreeSet<AccountId>>)

  • a Mapping with Vec adds 0.6KB
  • a Mapping with BTreeSet adds ~0KB (I think this is small because a lot of the BTreeSet functionality is not used due to it being the value of a Mapping, and therefore removed from the contract)
  • a Mapping with BTreeMap adds 0.4KB


  • Mapping is a lot lighter-weight than BTreeSet or BTreeMap to import (I imagine this is because Mapping is always compiled into the contract, so is present in the empty contract and importing it does not do anything. This is supported by the single Mapping contract increase being almost equal to that of adding another Mapping above)
  • adding additional Mapping, BTreeSet or BTreeMap increases contract size by ~0.5KB for each
  • adding additional Vec is rather expensive at 2.3KB each, but the original import is much smaller than BTreeSet or BTreeMap
  • having data structures like Vec, BTreeSet or BTreeMap loaded via a Mapping costs less than having them in the contract storage directly. (I imagine this is because much of their functionality can be optimised away based on their usage)
Type Import size (KB) Usage size (KB)
Mapping 0.5 0.6
BTreeSet 8.7 0.4
BTreeMap 9.1 0.5
Vec 2 2.3
  • import size is the cost of using only 1 of the data structure
  • usage size is the cost of each additional use of the data structure


  • Avoiding BTreeSet or BTreeMap can save ~10KB
  • Each Vec cost ~2KB
  • Use Mapping (or BTreeSet or BTreeMap if already in use elsewhere) over Vec where possible to save ~1.5KB
  • Adding additional Mapping, BTreeSet or BTreeMap all cost approximately the same amount (~0.5KB)
  • Lazy load BTreeSet, BTreeMap and Vec to save ~0.6KB at most
  • Using five or more BTreeSets or BTreeMaps is more cost-effective than using Vecs overall
  • Using less than five Vecs is more cost-effective than using BTreeSets or BTreeMaps overall

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.