Repository navigation
feat(io): a segment-keyed IO protocol for planner-driven scans - #10568
joseph-isaacs wants to merge 1 commit into
Performance Regression: -3.24%
4 warnings
⚠️ Walltime results may be unreliableSome benchmarks used the Walltime instrument outside CodSpeed Macro Runners, which can make the results inconsistent.
⚠️ Unable to measure the execution of 2 benchmarksThese benchmarks measured no execution time, so their results are not comparable and count as unchanged. This usually happens when the compiler removes the code under test.
⚠️ 20 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.
⚡ 1 improved benchmark
❌ 1 regressed benchmark
✅ 2437 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 12 skipped benchmarks1
Warning
Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.
Performance Changes
| Mode | Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | CPU Simulation | test_repeated_scan_scalar_at[int_float] |
361 µs | 436.5 µs | -17.29% |
| ⚡ | CPU Simulation | test_scan_filter[int] |
3.4 ms | 3 ms | +13.19% |
Tip
Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.
Comparing ji/segment-io-protocol (75bbf20) with develop (a59294e)
Footnotes
-
12 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. ↩