Repository navigation
Build precision 19 decimal scalars at i128 - #10903
connortsui20 wants to merge 1 commit into
Performance Regression: -13.54%
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.
⚡ 1 improved benchmark
❌ 3 regressed benchmarks
✅ 2200 untouched 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 | threshold_neon[64] |
2.6 µs | 3.8 µs | -31.52% |
| ❌ | Walltime | threshold_neon[80] |
3.3 µs | 4.4 µs | -24.01% |
| ❌ | Walltime | filter_neon[80] |
2.4 µs | 2.8 µs | -12.32% |
| ⚡ | CPU Simulation | test_repeated_scan_scalar_at[int_str] |
412.1 µs | 336.5 µs | +22.46% |
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-scalar-factory-width (41073b9) with ct/decimal-width-owner (9836fef)
Footnotes
-
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. ↩
-
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. ↩