Repository navigation
feat(scan): a planning driver for planners and morsels - #10549
joseph-isaacs wants to merge 1 commit into
Performance Regression: -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.
⚠️ 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.
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.
⚡ 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
-
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. ↩
-
No successful run was found on
ji/scan-v2-1-io(7f2d936) during the generation of this report, sodevelop(2274f40) was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩