1 benchmark regressed
⚠️ 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.
⚠️ Different runtime environments detected
Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.
⚡ 6 improved benchmarks
❌ 1 regressed benchmark
✅ 2246 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 218 skipped benchmarks1
Warning
Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.
Performance Changes
| Mode | Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | Simulation | decompress[u64, (4000, 1024)] |
71.7 µs | 87.6 µs | -18.14% |
| ⚡ | WallTime | arrow_checked_add_u32_neon[16384] |
20.3 µs | 12.9 µs | +57.95% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | take_filter_list_slice_mask_sequential_indices[768, 50] |
184 µs | 141.8 µs | +29.78% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | take_filter_list_slice_mask_sequential_indices[256, 50] |
185.4 µs | 143.3 µs | +29.32% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | compact[(1024, 90)] |
1.4 µs | 1.3 µs | +12.98% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | compact[(2048, 90)] |
1.5 µs | 1.3 µs | +12.4% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | allocate_drop_arrow[0] |
516.4 ns | 462.3 ns | +11.72% |
Tip
Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.
Comparing mk/dbp-v2 (78415c2) with mk/edition-aware-schemes (97cbf22)2
Footnotes
-
218 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
mk/edition-aware-schemes(d3526b5) during the generation of this report, so 7a50318 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩