feat(scan): a planning driver for planners and morsels

[joseph-isaacs]

Summary

2/5 of the V2 scan stack, stacked on #10548. Split out of #10464.

Stack:

1. IO service (feat(file): a coalescing IO service for planning-protocol scans #10548)
2. Planning driver (this PR)
3. V2 scan in vortex-layout
4. Wiring into vortex-file, DataFusion and DuckDB
5. Split-boundary search perf

Changes

Only vortex-scan changes. A planning driver runs planners and morsels on the planning protocol, publishes their IO through an IoService and traces their work (vortex_scan::driver debug events, with the request trace ids from the IO PR). Nothing drives it until the V2 scan PR.

Tests: driver unit tests in planning/driver/tests.rs, plus a scripted planner harness in planning/tests/scripted.rs.

Checks run:

• cargo clippy -p vortex-io -p vortex-scan -p vortex-layout -p vortex-file --all-targets --all-features -- -D warnings on this commit
• cargo test -p vortex-scan --lib (on the top of the stack)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01Hai26WGsNERxRHXpA3JboE

---

Generated by Claude Code

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 5.08%

⚠️ Unknown Walltime execution environment detected

Using the Walltime instrument on standard Hosted Runners will lead to inconsistent data.

For the most accurate results, we recommend using CodSpeed Macro Runners: bare-metal machines fine-tuned for performance measurement consistency.

⚠️ 1 benchmark measured no execution time

Nothing ran under measurement, usually because the compiler removed the code under test. This result is not comparable, so it counts as unchanged.

Preventing compiler optimizations

• bench_compare_primitive[(10000, 2)]

⚠️ 40 benchmarks spent significant time in system calls

System calls cannot be consistently instrumented, so they are not included in the measure, which understates the real cost. Please switch to the Walltime instrument to accurately measure system calls.

Measurement and system calls

• density_sweep_dense_runs[0.001]
• random_i128[0.01]
• test_repeated_scan_scalar_at[int_float]
• test_repeated_scan_scalar_at[int_str]
• test_scan_scalar_at[int]
• test_repeated_scan_scalar_at[int]
• test_scan_scalar_at[int_str]
• test_scan_scalar_at[int_str_float]
• density_sweep_dense_runs[0.9]
• test_scan_filter_to_arrow_array[int_float]
• …and 30 more

ℹ️ 40 benchmarks have no flame graph

The flamegraph could not be generated because we failed to resolve the symbols in the profiling trace. This happens when we fail to harvest information about language frames.

• test_scan_filter[int]
• test_repeated_scan_scalar_at[int_str_float]
• test_repeated_scan_scalar_at[int_float]
• test_repeated_scan_scalar_at[int_str]
• test_scan_scalar_at[int]
• test_repeated_scan[int]
• test_repeated_scan_scalar_at[int]
• test_scan_scalar_at[int_float]
• test_repeated_scan_to_arrow_array[int]
• test_scan_scalar_at[int_str]
• …and 30 more

⚠️ Different runtime environments detected

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

⚡ 5 improved benchmarks
❌ 5 regressed benchmarks
✅ 2237 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 12 skipped benchmarks¹

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌ ⚠️	Simulation	density_sweep_dense_runs[0.001]	29.4 µs	46.7 µs	-37.16%
❌	Simulation	random_i8[0.01]	103.8 µs	132.6 µs	-21.68%
❌	WallTime	threshold_neon[80]	3.7 µs	4.5 µs	-16.45%
❌	WallTime	bitpack_blocked_compress_avx512	4.9 µs	5.6 µs	-12.84%
❌ ℹ️	Simulation	test_scan_filter[int]	3 ms	3.4 ms	-10.47%
⚡ ⚠️	Simulation	random_i128[0.01]	6 µs	4.9 µs	+20.35%
⚡	WallTime	threshold_avx2[80]	3 µs	2.7 µs	+12.82%
⚡ ℹ️	Simulation	test_repeated_scan_scalar_at[int_str_float]	544.6 µs	484.3 µs	+12.46%
⚡ ⚠️	Simulation	test_repeated_scan_scalar_at[int_float]	393.1 µs	357.2 µs	+10.07%
⚡ ⚠️	Simulation	test_repeated_scan_scalar_at[int_str]	442.8 µs	402.4 µs	+10.04%

Tip

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

---

_{Comparing ji/scan-v2-2-driver (da97422) with develop (2274f40)²}

Footnotes

1. 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. ↩

2. No successful run was found on ji/scan-v2-1-io (7f2d936) during the generation of this report, so develop (2274f40) was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩