[connortsui20]

Summary

• Tracking Issue: Tracking Issue: Fix Canonical Decimal #10701

Decimal Widen, legacy decimal reads and DecimalByteParts splitting need raw extrema before choosing or checking precision. The existing decimal min/max implementation constructs checked scalars, so callers cannot use it directly for values outside the declared precision.

Changes

Expose the raw range from the existing pairwise scanner in aggregate_fn/fns/min_max/decimal.rs. Both the aggregate and new raw-range callers use that implementation. Scalar construction stays in the aggregate layer, and the raw helper ignores null slots without allocating or checking precision.

Tests cover all six storage widths, native extrema, null payloads, empty and all-null inputs, and aggregate result dtypes. Benchmarks add wide decimal cases to the existing min/max target. Checks are left to CI.

API Changes

Add public vortex_array::arrays::decimal::valid_range, re-exported from the existing decimal min/max implementation.

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will regress 1 benchmark

4 warnings

⚠️ Walltime results may be unreliable

Some benchmarks used the Walltime instrument outside CodSpeed Macro Runners, which can make the results inconsistent.

Learn more about Macro Runners

See affected benchmarks

⚠️ Unable to measure the execution of 1 benchmark

This benchmark measured no execution time, so its result is not comparable and counts as unchanged. This usually happens when the compiler removes the code under test.

Prevent compiler optimizations

See affected benchmarks

⚠️ 1 benchmark is dominated by system calls

System 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.

Learn more about system calls

See affected benchmarks

⚠️ Base and head ran on different runner types

Some 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.

Learn more about Macro Runners

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

⚡ 9 improved benchmarks
❌ 1 regressed benchmark
✅ 2260 untouched benchmarks
🆕 4 new benchmarks
⏩ 370 skipped benchmarks¹
🗄️ 30 archived benchmarks run²

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	Walltime	mul_u64_nonnull_neon	20.4 µs	39 µs	-47.76%
⚡	Walltime	threshold_neon[64]	3.8 µs	2.6 µs	+44.04%
⚡	Walltime	filter_neon[64]	2.7 µs	1.9 µs	+43.44%
⚡	Walltime	threshold_neon[80]	4.7 µs	3.4 µs	+38.32%
⚡	Walltime	filter_neon[80]	3.4 µs	2.6 µs	+27.19%
⚡	CPU Simulation	encode_primitives[u8, (2000, 4)]	164.1 µs	136.2 µs	+20.42%
⚡	CPU Simulation	test_repeated_scan_scalar_at[int_str]	389.9 µs	338.5 µs	+15.19%
⚡	CPU Simulation	fsl_i32[16, 0.01]	14.8 µs	12.9 µs	+14.51%
⚡	Walltime	threshold_avx512[80]	2.8 µs	2.5 µs	+13.91%
⚡	CPU Simulation	take_filter_list_small_uncached_random_mask_random_indices[768, 10]	118.6 µs	105.4 µs	+12.55%
🆕	CPU Simulation	min_max_decimal_i128[NonNullable]	N/A	418 µs	N/A
🆕	CPU Simulation	min_max_decimal_i128[ScatteredNulls]	N/A	512.3 µs	N/A
🆕	CPU Simulation	min_max_decimal_i256[NonNullable]	N/A	1.1 ms	N/A
🆕	CPU Simulation	min_max_decimal_i256[ScatteredNulls]	N/A	673.9 µs	N/A

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing ct/decimal-valid-range (1ba93b7) with develop (10d2d39)}

Footnotes

1. 370 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. ↩

2. 30 benchmarks were run, but are now archived. If they were deleted in another branch, consider rebasing to remove them from the report. Instead if they were added back, click here to restore them. ↩