rustdoc-search: update to stringdex 0.0.6

[notriddle]

This update includes a few optimizations that reduce the size and index building time:

• the wire format uses two bits to store four possibilities, instead of only handling three https://gitlab.com/notriddle/stringdex/-/merge_requests/34

• the hashes themselves are 40 bits instead of 48, and inlining is able to still fit enough data by storing runs https://gitlab.com/notriddle/stringdex/-/merge_requests/35

• scanning for duplicates takes advantage of the rarity of conflicts, using an array with 32 bit numbers and only pulling in the other 8 bits when actually needed https://gitlab.com/notriddle/stringdex/-/merge_requests/37

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in HTML/CSS/JS.

cc @GuillaumeGomez, @lolbinarycat

[notriddle]

@bors try

@rust-timer queue profiles=Doc

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 426beb3 (426beb31e39da27b50df994883459500a2856072, parent: 4efe3dc40fdd5ed3d001e7736ff384f2d21d7361)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (426beb3): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.5%	[-6.8%, -0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-8.6%	[-8.6%, -8.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-6.8%, 0.4%]	3

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.3%, secondary 1.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.3%	[1.1%, 1.8%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.3%	[0.8%, 1.9%]	10
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[1.1%, 1.8%]	3

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 482.458s -> 482.436s (-0.00%)
Artifact size: 394.92 MiB -> 396.98 MiB (0.52%)

[GuillaumeGomez]

Looks like a great improvement, thanks! Not sure if the regression on html5ever is expected so I'll let you r=me if it's ok with you.

[notriddle]

Yeah, it's about what I expected. There's a trade-off between doc_bytes, doc_files_count, and instructions. Everything's tuned so that every benchmark either has a massive drop (that 6% libc improvement) or a sub-1% change (like html5ever).

@bors r=GuillaumeGomez

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 949570f has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Duration: 3h 8m 25s
Pushing a0e206b to main...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 1d8897a (parent) -> a0e206b (this PR)

Test differences

Show 4 test diffs

4 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard a0e206b5665d7c075cdc0ca5f3637a697e8ff55a --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. dist-android: 28m 22s -> 34m 36s (+22.0%)
2. tidy: 2m 42s -> 3m 17s (+21.1%)
3. x86_64-gnu-tools: 1h 3m -> 53m 51s (-15.7%)
4. dist-aarch64-apple: 1h 29m -> 1h 43m (+15.2%)
5. aarch64-apple: 2h 55m -> 2h 29m (-14.5%)
6. dist-apple-various: 1h 55m -> 1h 39m (-14.4%)
7. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 53m 36s -> 46m 1s (-14.2%)
8. i686-gnu-nopt-1: 2h 23m -> 2h 5m (-12.5%)
9. dist-aarch64-msvc: 1h 34m -> 1h 45m (+12.2%)
10. aarch64-gnu-llvm-21-2: 51m 9s -> 45m 2s (-12.0%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a0e206b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

• If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
  please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
  @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
• If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
  a new PR with a fix for the regression.
• If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
  you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
  were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.5%	[-6.8%, -0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-8.6%	[-8.6%, -8.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-6.8%, 0.4%]	3

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-3.1%, -2.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-3.1%, 2.1%]	3

Cycles

Results (primary -3.9%, secondary -0.2%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.5%	[3.5%, 3.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.9%	[-3.9%, -3.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.9%	[-3.9%, -3.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.9%	[-3.9%, -3.9%]	1

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 480.71s -> 481.291s (0.12%)
Artifact size: 394.85 MiB -> 394.91 MiB (0.02%)