Repository navigation
Separate RowFn batch inspection from execution planning - #10899
Performance Regression: -9.47%
3 warnings
⚠️ Walltime results may be unreliableSome benchmarks used the Walltime instrument outside CodSpeed Macro Runners, which can make the results inconsistent.
⚠️ 3 benchmarks are dominated by system callsSystem calls cannot be simulated consistently and are left out of the measure. The reported value understates the real cost. Switch to the Walltime instrument to measure them.
⚠️ Base and head ran on different runner typesSome benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runner types, so the changes might not come from the code. Run base and head on the same runner type, or use CodSpeed Macro Runners for more stable results.
⚡ 2 improved benchmarks
❌ 4 regressed benchmarks
✅ 2298 untouched benchmarks
Warning
Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.
Performance Changes
| Mode | Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | Walltime | threshold_neon[64] |
2.6 µs | 4.5 µs | -42.32% |
| ❌ | CPU Simulation | filter_powerlaw_by_random[10000] |
813.5 ns | 1,221 ns | -33.38% |
| ❌ | CPU Simulation | missing_stats[16] |
67.9 µs | 85.4 µs | -20.44% |
| ❌ | Walltime | threshold_neon[80] |
3.5 µs | 4.1 µs | -14.56% |
| ⚡ | Walltime | mul_u64_nonnull_neon |
39.2 µs | 20.6 µs | +89.76% |
| ⚡ | Walltime | starts_with_neon[8, VarBin] |
45.5 µs | 41 µs | +11.05% |
Tip
Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.
Comparing ct/row-fn-cleanup/batch-inspection (0ddfefa) with develop (f04a28c)
