BE-512: HashQL: Allow cross-backend transitions for SwitchInt terminators

[indietyp]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

SwitchInt terminators were previously blocked from generating cross-backend transitions during terminator placement, based on an assumption that coordinating branches across backends would be too complex. This restriction has been lifted, allowing SwitchInt to behave the same as Goto and permit cross-backend transitions. This enables more flexible execution placement for conditional branching logic.

🔍 What does this change?

• SwitchInt now calls add_goto_transitions instead of being a no-op, enabling cross-backend edge costs to be populated for blocks ending with a SwitchInt terminator.
• The test switchint_blocks_cross_backend has been renamed to switchint_allows_cross_backend and updated to assert that the Interpreter -> Embedding transition is now reachable with the expected cost.
• The switchint_edge_targets_are_branch_specific test has been updated to assert that cross-backend transitions are present rather than absent.
• The terminator placement snapshot has been updated to reflect the newly populated I->E and P->E transitions on edge[1].

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?

• Updated unit tests in terminator_placement/tests.rs covering SwitchInt cross-backend transition behaviour.
• Updated snapshot test reflecting the new edge cost matrix output.

❓ How to test this?

1. Run cargo test in libs/@local/hashql/mir.
2. Confirm all terminator placement tests pass, including the renamed switchint_allows_cross_backend test.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 4, 2026 2:31pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	May 4, 2026 2:31pm

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	May 4, 2026 2:31pm

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Changes execution-planning transition rules so SwitchInt can introduce backend switches, which may alter placement/cost outcomes across conditional branches. Covered by updated unit and snapshot tests, but impacts core planning logic.

Overview
SwitchInt terminators now generate cross-backend transition costs the same way as Goto, enabling backend switches on conditional edges during terminator placement.

Tests and the UI snapshot were updated to assert/reflect the newly-allowed Interpreter <-> Embedding (and related) transitions on SwitchInt edges, including branch-specific edge matrices.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 5eeec53. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[indietyp]

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

• BE-513: HashQL: Rework dynamic aggregate size estimation #8697
• BE-512: HashQL: Allow cross-backend transitions for SwitchInt terminators #8696 👈 (View in Graphite)
• BE-524: HashQL: Remove island schedule module #8694
• BE-525: HashQL: Remove implicit type-widening from Integer operations, and make comparison size aware #8693
• BE-515: HashQL: Remove OFFSET 0 materialization fence from generated query #8650
• BE-514: HashQL: implement iterative adjustment passes in placement solver #8635
• BE-500, BE-501: HashQL: Unify mixed parameter resolution in data dependency analysis #8607
• BE-494: HashQL: Loop-breaker selection for recursive inlining #8600
• BE-482: HashQL: Remove logical not from MIR and fix postgres boolean lowering #8595
• BE-474: HashQL: Take into account terminator target eligibility in execution backend placement #8587
• BE-455: HashQL: Introduce evaluation orchestrator #8586
• BE-523: HashQL: Suspendable interpreter with structured values and input system #8675
• BE-522: HashQL: Expand stdlib type system with temporal types #8674
• BE-306: HashQL: PostgreSQL translation #8526
• BE-457: HashQL: MIR execution pipeline extensions for postgres compilation #8525
• BE-456: HashQL: Entity type model enrichment and graph store query extensions #8524
• BE-429: HashQL: Add island dependency graph with data requirement resolution #8501
• BE-428: HashQL: Simplify traversal tracking to path recording #8498
• BE-434: HashQL: Refactor entity storage path resolution with centralized schema mapping #8496
• BE-427: Add hashql-macros crate with procedural macros for ID types and symbols #8495
• main

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

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Enables cross-backend transitions for blocks ending in SwitchInt terminators, aligning their behavior with Goto during terminator placement.
Changes: Updates the edge-cost matrix population logic and adjusts unit/snapshot tests to assert newly reachable cross-backend paths with expected costs.

_{🤖 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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 66.19%. Comparing base (6e14a48) to head (5eeec53).

Additional details and impacted files

@@                          Coverage Diff                           @@
##           bm/be-524-hashql-remove-island-dag    #8696      +/-   ##
======================================================================
- Coverage                               66.19%   66.19%   -0.01%     
======================================================================
  Files                                     932      932              
  Lines                                   84624    84621       -3     
  Branches                                 4461     4461              
======================================================================
- Hits                                    56020    56017       -3     
  Misses                                  28056    28056              
  Partials                                  548      548              

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.41% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-backend-utils	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	9.63% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-api	2.52% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	28.26% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	79.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	91.83% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 24 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 56 skipped benchmarks¹

---

_{Comparing bm/be-512-hashql-switchint-allow-cross-backend-transitions (5eeec53) with bm/be-524-hashql-remove-island-dag (6e14a48)}

Footnotes

1. 56 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

[github-actions]

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	$$26.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 161 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.240 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.32 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.541 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.089 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$41.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 366 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.874 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$13.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 127 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.582 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$23.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 197 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.118 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$27.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 223 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.340 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.641 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.217 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.004 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.131 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.009 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.179 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.298 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.03 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.336 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.183 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.290 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$3.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.788 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.249 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.44 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.033 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.494 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.909 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.787 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.291 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$2.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.049 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.943 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.87 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.764 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.394 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.157 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.19 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.018 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.22 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.953 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.866 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.679 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$53.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 354 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.021 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$44.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 214 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.467 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$48.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 334 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.528 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$43.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 247 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.236 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$61.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 396 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.709 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$60.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 278 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.646 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$54.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 324 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.399 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$95.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 436 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.003 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$45.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 248 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.546 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$267 \mathrm{ms} \pm 892 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.135 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$19.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 111 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.042 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$19.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 109 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.342 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$19.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 121 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.560 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$18.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 102 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.379 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$24.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 185 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.394 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$18.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 118 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.540 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$18.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 105 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.499 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$19.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 96.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.308 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 110 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.382 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$25.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 184 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.012 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$33.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 303 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.762 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$33.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 274 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.684 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$33.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 319 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.26 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$32.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 282 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.063 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$34.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 282 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.274 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$33.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 285 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.189 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$34.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 285 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.371 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$34.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 281 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.352 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$34.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 261 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.264 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 45.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.083 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$90.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 450 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.013 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$142 \mathrm{ms} \pm 489 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.571 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$97.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 458 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.065 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$109 \mathrm{ms} \pm 591 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.686 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$115 \mathrm{ms} \pm 584 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.471 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$123 \mathrm{ms} \pm 467 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.052 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$101 \mathrm{ms} \pm 469 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.302 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$130 \mathrm{ms} \pm 513 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.149 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$108 \mathrm{ms} \pm 422 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.128 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$116 \mathrm{ms} \pm 399 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.722 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$119 \mathrm{ms} \pm 493 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.173 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$118 \mathrm{ms} \pm 524 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.032 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$185 \mathrm{ms} \pm 851 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}42.8 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$166 \mathrm{ms} \pm 2.37 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}17.4 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$39.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 224 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.941 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$568 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.24 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}2.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph