BE-259: HashQL: Add benchmarks for type system operations #8216

indietyp · 2025-12-25T17:11:43Z

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Add benchmarks for the type system to measure performance of critical operations like subtyping, lattice operations, simplification, and type inference.

🔍 What does this change?

Adds a new benchmark suite for the type system using codspeed-criterion-compat
Creates benchmark groups for lattice operations, subtyping, simplification, and inference
Implements helper functions to properly manage heap allocations during benchmarking
Adds skeleton types to safely handle environment cleanup
Makes some previously test-only functions public to support benchmarking

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

This PR:

does not modify any publishable blocks or libraries, or modifications do not need publishing

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

The changes in this PR:

are internal and do not require a docs change

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

The changes in this PR:

do not affect the execution graph

🛡 What tests cover this?

The benchmarks themselves serve as tests for the type system functionality

❓ How to test this?

Run the benchmarks with cargo bench -p hashql-core
Verify that all benchmark groups (lattice, subtyping, simplify, inference) execute successfully

cursor · 2025-12-25T17:11:50Z

PR Summary

Introduces performance benchmarks for the type system and minimal runtime changes to support safe, allocation-aware runs.

Adds benches/type_system.rs with benchmark groups: lattice, subtyping, simplify, inference (uses codspeed-criterion-compat and per-iteration batching)
Updates Cargo.toml dev-deps and registers the type_system bench; adds build:codspeed and test:codspeed npm scripts
Introduces into_skeleton and *_Skeleton types for AnalysisEnvironment, SimplifyEnvironment, LatticeEnvironment, InferenceEnvironment, and VariableDependencyCollector to delay drops safely during benches
Makes Ident::synthetic and Variable::synthetic pub for non-test use; adds LatticeEnvironment::without_warnings
Replaces RefCell with LocalLock in ProvisionedScope to manage provisional mappings during simplification

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 2722e89. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

indietyp · 2025-12-25T17:12:15Z

Warning

This pull request is not mergeable via GitHub because a downstack PR is open. Once all requirements are satisfied, merge this PR as a stack on Graphite.
Learn more

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

augmentcode · 2025-12-25T17:16:50Z

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Adds a dedicated benchmark suite for HashQL’s type system to measure performance of core operations (lattice, subtyping, simplification, inference).

Changes:

Adds a new hashql-core benchmark target (benches/type_system.rs) using codspeed-criterion-compat, with groups for join/meet, subtyping, simplification, and solver runs.
Introduces a heap/environment benchmarking harness that resets the arena each iteration (via iter_batched_ref + BatchSize::PerIteration) to avoid UAF while reusing allocations.
Adds “skeleton” types and into_skeleton() helpers on type environments to delay large drops and keep per-iteration teardown predictable.
Adds LatticeEnvironment::without_warnings() / warnings_enabled to suppress non-fatal diagnostics during benchmarking.
Refactors provisional mapping internals from RefCell to LocalLock in context/provision.rs.
Makes Ident::synthetic and Variable::synthetic public (and #[must_use]) so benches can construct synthetic values.

Technical Notes: The benchmark harness uses a small amount of unsafe (raw heap pointer) but documents the soundness assumptions (single-threaded + per-iteration batching).

_{🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎}

augmentcode

Review completed. No suggestions at this time.

Comment augment review to trigger a new review at any time.

codspeed-hq · 2025-12-25T17:18:12Z

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #8216 will not alter performance

_{Comparing bm/be-259-hashql-write-type-system-benchmarks (2722e89) with bm/be-227-hashql-implement-call-graph (964c8b2)}

Summary

✅ 17 untouched
🆕 12 new

Benchmarks breakdown

	Benchmark	`BASE`	`HEAD`	Efficiency
🆕	`contravariant_closure`	N/A	8.1 µs	N/A
🆕	`primitives`	N/A	6.1 µs	N/A
🆕	`full_solve/contravariant`	N/A	35.8 µs	N/A
🆕	`full_solve/simple`	N/A	36 µs	N/A
🆕	`union_with_duplicates`	N/A	18 µs	N/A
🆕	`meet/recursive`	N/A	320.6 µs	N/A
🆕	`nested_struct`	N/A	4 µs	N/A
🆕	`join/primitives`	N/A	6.6 µs	N/A
🆕	`join/recursive`	N/A	582 µs	N/A
🆕	`meet/primitives`	N/A	6.6 µs	N/A
🆕	`anti_symmetry`	N/A	44.7 µs	N/A
🆕	`full_solve/complex`	N/A	41.2 µs	N/A

codecov · 2025-12-25T17:22:17Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 43.24324% with 42 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 60.06%. Comparing base (964c8b2) to head (2722e89).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...@local/hashql/core/src/type/environment/lattice.rs	31.57%	11 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...local/hashql/core/src/type/environment/analysis.rs	0.00%	9 Missing ⚠️
...s/@local/hashql/core/src/type/environment/infer.rs	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
...local/hashql/core/src/type/environment/simplify.rs	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
...ibs/@local/hashql/core/src/type/inference/visit.rs	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                            Coverage Diff                            @@
##           bm/be-227-hashql-implement-call-graph    #8216      +/-   ##
=========================================================================
+ Coverage                                  59.37%   60.06%   +0.68%     
=========================================================================
  Files                                       1195     1054     -141     
  Lines                                     113796   106495    -7301     
  Branches                                    4986     4432     -554     
=========================================================================
- Hits                                       67572    63965    -3607     
+ Misses                                     45448    41808    -3640     
+ Partials                                     776      722      -54

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-py	`?`
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	`1.40% <ø> (ø)`
apps.hash-api	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
backend-integration-tests	`?`
blockprotocol.type-system	`40.84% <ø> (ø)`
deer	`?`
error-stack	`?`
local.claude-hooks	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
local.harpc-client	`51.24% <ø> (ø)`
local.hash-backend-utils	`?`
local.hash-graph-sdk	`10.88% <ø> (ø)`
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
local.hash-subgraph	`?`
rust.antsi	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
rust.deer	`?`
rust.error-stack	`90.88% <ø> (ø)`
rust.harpc-codec	`84.70% <ø> (ø)`
rust.harpc-net	`96.18% <ø> (-0.02%)`	⬇️
rust.harpc-tower	`66.80% <ø> (ø)`
rust.harpc-types	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
rust.harpc-wire-protocol	`92.23% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-codec	`72.76% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-api	`2.89% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-authorization	`62.47% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	`25.61% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-store	`30.54% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	`47.95% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-types	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-validation	`83.45% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-ast	`87.25% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-compiletest	`46.65% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-core	`82.13% <43.24%> (-0.19%)`	⬇️
rust.hashql-diagnostics	`72.43% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-eval	`68.54% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-hir	`89.10% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-mir	`88.51% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	`94.05% <ø> (ø)`
rust.sarif	`?`
sarif	`?`
tests.hash-backend-integration	`?`
unit-tests	`?`

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

github-actions · 2025-12-25T18:21:54Z

Benchmark results

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2002	$$28.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 226 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.92 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.41 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 66.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$41.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 273 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.617 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$13.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 77.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.103 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$22.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 138 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.873 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$29.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 197 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-30.599 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-81.915 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 74.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-52.215 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.726 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.82 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.53 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.061 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.19 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.428 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$4.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.808 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.39 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.917 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$3.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.516 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.25 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.040 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.672 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$3.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.64 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}11.8 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.90 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}11.0 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.2 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.92 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.74 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.20 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.22 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$2.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.06 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.80 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.20 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.27 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.81 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.88 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.07 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.64 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.27 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 8.59 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.04 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.07 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$38.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 168 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$75.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 278 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.119 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$43.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 184 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.34 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$45.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 164 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.046 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$53.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 267 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$39.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 181 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.807 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$417 \mathrm{ms} \pm 863 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.343 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$94.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 438 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.133 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$84.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 368 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.250 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$312 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.68 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}13.7 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$15.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.05 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$14.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.340 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$16.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 425 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}12.5 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$17.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$14.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.497 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$14.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 61.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.81 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$14.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 52.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$15.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 65.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.76 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$22.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 139 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.860 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/block/v/1`	$$29.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 281 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.049 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1`	$$29.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 281 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1`	$$30.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 253 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.44 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1`	$$29.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 251 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.166 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2`	$$29.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 275 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1`	$$29.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 285 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.206 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1`	$$28.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 274 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.237 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1`	$$30.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 252 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1`	$$28.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 237 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: `bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba`	$$8.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 35.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$46.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 546 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$93.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 374 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$52.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 306 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$60.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 336 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.54 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$67.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 350 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$74.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 424 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$48.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 197 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.611 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$76.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 348 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$55.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 247 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.058 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$63.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 370 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$65.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 344 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$65.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 315 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.633 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$131 \mathrm{ms} \pm 394 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.024 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$131 \mathrm{ms} \pm 469 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.124 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$38.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 187 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.017 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$546 \mathrm{ms} \pm 854 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.777 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

indietyp added 4 commits December 25, 2025 17:21

chore: fheckpoint

455145e

chore: fheckpoint

cf84a9d

chore: checkpoint

7cafb96

feat: benchmark

6d9d82f

graphite-app bot assigned indietyp Dec 25, 2025

github-actions bot added area/deps Relates to third-party dependencies (area) area/libs Relates to first-party libraries/crates/packages (area) type/eng > backend Owned by the @backend team labels Dec 25, 2025

indietyp mentioned this pull request Dec 25, 2025

BE-227: HashQL: Implement call graph analysis for MIR #8214

Open

3 tasks

chore: enable package.json

2722e89

vercel bot temporarily deployed to Preview – petrinaut December 25, 2025 17:16 Inactive

augmentcode bot reviewed Dec 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

vercel bot deployed to Preview – hash December 25, 2025 17:26 View deployment

This was referenced Dec 26, 2025

BE-260: HashQL: Switch to bump allocator with scoping support #8218

Open

BE-262: HashQL: Do not intern empty slices #8223

Open

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-227-hashql-implement-call-graph branch from 9d0c0ed to 964c8b2 Compare December 28, 2025 11:17

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-259-hashql-write-type-system-benchmarks branch from b00cdae to 2722e89 Compare December 28, 2025 11:17

vercel bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut December 28, 2025 11:23 View deployment

vercel bot deployed to Preview – hash December 28, 2025 11:32 View deployment

graphite-app bot requested a review from a team December 28, 2025 11:32

indietyp mentioned this pull request Jan 8, 2026

BE-254: HashQL: Implement MIR interpreter with runtime value representation #8245

Open

3 tasks

BE-259: HashQL: Add benchmarks for type system operations #8216

Are you sure you want to change the base?

BE-259: HashQL: Add benchmarks for type system operations #8216

Uh oh!

Conversation

indietyp commented Dec 25, 2025

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

🔍 What does this change?

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

🛡 What tests cover this?

❓ How to test this?

Uh oh!

cursor bot commented Dec 25, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

PR Summary

Uh oh!

indietyp commented Dec 25, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

augmentcode bot commented Dec 25, 2025

Uh oh!

augmentcode bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq bot commented Dec 25, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #8216 will not alter performance

Summary

Benchmarks breakdown

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Dec 25, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Dec 25, 2025

Benchmark results

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

policy_resolution_medium

policy_resolution_none

policy_resolution_small

read_scaling_complete

read_scaling_linkless

representative_read_entity

representative_read_entity_type

representative_read_multiple_entities

scenarios

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

cursor bot commented Dec 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

indietyp commented Dec 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codspeed-hq bot commented Dec 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Dec 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading