perf(graph): fast-reject FileNode Eq and hash interned node strings by content id - #832
2 benchmarks regressed
⚠️ Different runtime environments detected
Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.
⚡ 3 improved benchmarks
❌ 2 regressed benchmarks
✅ 79 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 4 skipped benchmarks1
Warning
Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.
Performance Changes
| Mode | Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | Simulation | node_id_finalization |
853.7 ms | 1,104.4 ms | -22.7% |
| ❌ | Memory | node_id_finalization |
17.4 MB | 19.4 MB | -10.44% |
| ⚡ | Memory | extract |
598.4 KB | 326.9 KB | +83.02% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | selector_append |
2.4 s | 1.6 s | +52.8% |
| ⚡ | Memory | edges |
355.9 KB | 321.2 KB | +10.79% |
Tip
Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.
Comparing execute-plan/79dd0742-pr-2-faster-filenode-eq-and-interned-string-hashing (03ccd35) with execute-plan/79dd0742-pr-1-cheap-concatenated-nodesortkey-comparison (71b3522)2
Footnotes
-
4 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
execute-plan/79dd0742-pr-1-cheap-concatenated-nodesortkey-comparison(b8a8e50) during the generation of this report, so 2ad151b was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩