Skip to content

Update tool cargo:cargo-llvm-cov to 0.8.0#8701

Open
hash-worker[bot] wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
deps/tool/cargo-cargo-llvm-cov-0.x
Open

Update tool cargo:cargo-llvm-cov to 0.8.0#8701
hash-worker[bot] wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
deps/tool/cargo-cargo-llvm-cov-0.x

Conversation

@hash-worker
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@hash-worker hash-worker Bot commented May 6, 2026

This PR contains the following updates:

Package Update Change
cargo:cargo-llvm-cov minor 0.6.180.8.0

Warning

Some dependencies could not be looked up. Check the Dependency Dashboard for more information.


Release Notes

taiki-e/cargo-llvm-cov (cargo:cargo-llvm-cov)

v0.8.5

Compare Source

v0.8.4

Compare Source

  • Update minimal version of cargo-config2 to 0.1.40 to fix error with custom targets in recent nightly.

v0.8.3

Compare Source

  • cargo llvm-cov show-env improvements:

    • Add --csh for csh and tcsh.
    • Add --nu for nushell.
    • Add --xonsh for xonsh.
  • Diagnostics improvements.

v0.8.2

Compare Source

v0.8.1

Compare Source

  • Back "cargo-llvm-cov subcommands other than report and clean may not work correctly ..." error to warning.

    This was changed from a warning to an error in 0.7.0, but it has been reverted because a case where it previously worked without issues was reported.

v0.8.0

Compare Source

  • Support glob pattern, versioned name with partial version or <name>@&#8203;<version> syntax, and package spec in --package. Previously, only package name and versioned package name with <name>:<full_version> are supported. (#​476)

    This also fixes regression introduced in 0.7.0 where causing packages specified with --package are wrongly excluded from report/test when package is specified with the above syntaxes.

  • Support glob pattern, versioned name, and package spec in --exclude. When we tested it previously, Cargo did not support this, but the current version of Cargo does support it. (#​476)

  • Align the exclusion behavior in reports when cargo-llvm-cov is performed in a sub-crate directory of a workspace or in the root crate of a non-virtual workspace without using --workspace or --package, to match the behavior when --workspace or --package is used (by default, only show the tested crates). (#​476)

    Compatibility Note: When --workspace or --package is not used, this will exclude other untested workspace members from the report that were previously implicitly included.

    If you want to test other workspace members, consider using --workspace or --package. If you don't want to test other workspace members but still want to include them in the report, consider using --workspace or --exclude-from-test.

v0.7.1

Compare Source

  • Fix regression introduced in 0.7.0 where causing coverage test failure in nextest's CI. (6e30e6f)

v0.7.0

Compare Source

  • Fix regression introduced in 0.7.0 where causing coverage test failure in nextest's CI. (6e30e6f)

v0.6.24

Compare Source

  • Support *-windows-gnullvm targets. (#​470, thanks @​mati865)

  • Fix a bug causing --profraw-only to remove too many files. (#​469, thanks @​smoelius)

  • Distribute prebuilt binary for AArch64 Windows.
    -C instrument-coverage doesn't support aarch64-pc-windows-msvc yet (rust-lang/rust#150123), but cross-compile to aarch64-pc-windows-gnullvm works.

v0.6.23

Compare Source

v0.6.22

Compare Source

  • Update documentation to mention the way to get coverage for wasm32-unknown-unknown target.

  • Exclude files named tests.rs/*_tests.rs/*-tests.rs from the report by default.

v0.6.21

Compare Source

  • Update minimal version of cargo-config2 to 0.1.39 to fix regression causing "invalid type: .., expected struct TargetConfig" error when a custom field used in target.<triple> config. (#​454)

v0.6.20

Compare Source

  • Support Cargo build-dir that added in Cargo 1.91. (#​452)

  • Update minimal version of cargo-config2 to 0.1.38 to improve support for target names that contain ".". (#​446)

v0.6.19

Compare Source

  • Distribute prebuilt binaries for powerpc64le/riscv64gc/s390x Linux.

Configuration

📅 Schedule: (UTC)

  • Branch creation
    • "before 4am every weekday,every weekend"
  • Automerge
    • "before 4am every weekday,every weekend"

🚦 Automerge: Enabled.

Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.


  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR has been generated by Renovate Bot.

@hash-worker hash-worker Bot enabled auto-merge May 6, 2026 01:01
@vercel
Copy link
Copy Markdown

vercel Bot commented May 6, 2026

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

Project Deployment Actions Updated (UTC)
hash Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 6, 2026 1:01am
hashdotdesign-tokens Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 6, 2026 1:01am
petrinaut Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 6, 2026 1:01am

@cursor
Copy link
Copy Markdown

cursor Bot commented May 6, 2026

PR Summary

Low Risk
Low risk: this only updates the pinned cargo:cargo-llvm-cov CLI tool version and does not change application/runtime code.

Overview
Updates the mise toolchain pin for cargo:cargo-llvm-cov from 0.6.18 to 0.8.0 in .config/mise/config.toml, affecting how coverage tooling is installed/used in local dev and CI.

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 124b76d. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the area/deps Relates to third-party dependencies (area) label May 6, 2026
@augmentcode
Copy link
Copy Markdown

augmentcode Bot commented May 6, 2026

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Updates the pinned mise tool version for cargo:cargo-llvm-cov from 0.6.18 to 0.8.0.
Why: Keeps Rust coverage tooling current for local development and CI coverage generation.

🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@augmentcode augmentcode Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Review completed. 1 suggestion posted.

Fix All in Augment

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

Comment thread .config/mise/config.toml
"cargo:cargo-hack" = "0.6.37"
"cargo:cargo-insta" = "1.43.1"
"cargo:cargo-llvm-cov" = "0.6.18"
"cargo:cargo-llvm-cov" = "0.8.0"
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@augmentcode augmentcode Bot May 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

cargo-llvm-cov 0.8.0 is the release where the upstream “subcommands other than report/clean …” check is an error (reverted to a warning in 0.8.1); since we run cargo llvm-cov … test in .config/mise/tasks/test/unit.sh, this pin could cause coverage runs to fail in that scenario. If you see that behavior, moving the pin to 0.8.1+ should avoid it.

Severity: medium

Fix This in Augment

🤖 Was this useful? React with 👍 or 👎, or 🚀 if it prevented an incident/outage.

@codspeed-hq
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codspeed-hq Bot commented May 6, 2026

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 80 untouched benchmarks


Comparing deps/tool/cargo-cargo-llvm-cov-0.x (124b76d) with main (e8f59de)

Open in CodSpeed

@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented May 6, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 57.84%. Comparing base (9125fd4) to head (124b76d).
⚠️ Report is 311 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8701      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   60.19%   57.84%   -2.35%     
==========================================
  Files        1232     1216      -16     
  Lines      118007   111729    -6278     
  Branches     5135     5143       +8     
==========================================
- Hits        71030    64635    -6395     
- Misses      46151    46296     +145     
+ Partials      826      798      -28     
Flag Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts 1.41% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api 0.00% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system 40.84% <ø> (ø)
local.claude-hooks 0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client 51.24% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk 10.88% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils 0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi 0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack 90.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec 84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net 96.14% <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 2.88% <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 79.04% <ø> (-2.73%) ⬇️
rust.hashql-diagnostics 72.43% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval 68.54% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir 89.10% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir 83.65% <ø> (-4.36%) ⬇️
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr 94.05% <ø> (ø)

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
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented May 6, 2026

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 $$26.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 166 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.119 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.47 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001 $$12.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.617 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314 $$42.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 403 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.252 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$14.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 157 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.311 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526 $$23.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 171 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.123 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078 $$40.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 174 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}45.2 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$21.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 130 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}497 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033 $$32.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 161 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}146 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102 $$3.71 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.444 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.693 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51 $$3.27 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.563 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269 $$5.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.964 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.44 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.727 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107 $$4.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.037 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133 $$4.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.777 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63 $$4.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.030 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2 $$2.58 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.59 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.59 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1 $$2.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8 $$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.90 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3 $$2.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.74 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52 $$2.89 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.723 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.355 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25 $$2.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.624 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94 $$3.27 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.808 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.78 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.860 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26 $$3.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.710 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66 $$3.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.509 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.78 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.392 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29 $$3.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.071 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth 1 entities $$49.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 260 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.237 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 10 entities $$40.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 218 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.161 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 25 entities $$45.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 329 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.176 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 5 entities $$39.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 265 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-12.658 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 50 entities $$54.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 335 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.891 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 1 entities $$56.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 231 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.440 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 10 entities $$50.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 277 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.764 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 25 entities $$97.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 452 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.799 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 5 entities $$41.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 214 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.241 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 50 entities $$282 \mathrm{ms} \pm 829 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.094 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 1 entities $$15.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 129 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-19.193 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 10 entities $$15.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 75.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-21.264 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 25 entities $$15.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-23.008 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 5 entities $$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 97.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-21.241 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 50 entities $$18.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 106 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-26.838 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id 1 entities $$14.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-21.931 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10 entities $$15.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-20.364 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 100 entities $$15.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 80.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-21.512 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 1000 entities $$15.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 92.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-20.061 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10000 entities $$22.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 165 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-12.451 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ 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 $$30.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 301 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.858 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1 $$30.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 278 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.511 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1 $$29.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 295 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-14.551 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1 $$29.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 268 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-12.672 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2 $$30.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 282 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.720 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1 $$29.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 261 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-12.796 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1 $$31.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 336 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.945 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1 $$29.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 272 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-15.228 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1 $$30.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 256 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.250 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba $$8.40 \mathrm{ms} \pm 42.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.536 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$47.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 252 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-48.763 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$96.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 429 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-33.244 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$52.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 333 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-46.252 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$63.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 601 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-42.085 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$71.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 495 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-38.319 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$77.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 369 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-38.153 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$51.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 469 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-49.998 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$80.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 488 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-39.368 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$57.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 372 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-47.727 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$66.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 367 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-44.180 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$68.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 488 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-43.304 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$68.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 444 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-43.170 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
full_test query-limited $$239 \mathrm{ms} \pm 787 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}38.4 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
full_test query-unlimited $$136 \mathrm{ms} \pm 819 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.979 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-limited $$39.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 166 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.408 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-unlimited $$600 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.44 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}9.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area/deps Relates to third-party dependencies (area)

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

0 participants