BE-273: HashQL: Profile and benchmark MIR interpreter #8251

indietyp · 2026-01-10T18:18:35Z

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Replace imbl with rpds for persistent data structures in the MIR interpreter, and optimize interpreter performance.

The interpreter is now only 20-40% slower instead of the previous 100%+.

🔍 What does this change?

Replaces imbl dependency with rpds for persistent data structures (List and Dict)
Adds inlining annotations to hot code paths in the interpreter
Optimizes SwitchTargets::target() with a fast path for common cases
Adds cold path annotations to error handling code
Optimizes value comparison in the interpreter
Adds a new benchmark for the interpreter (fibonacci recursive)
Improves parameter passing in the interpreter to avoid unnecessary copies
Optimizes local variable storage in the interpreter

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

This PR:

does not modify any publishable blocks or libraries, or modifications do not need publishing

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

The changes in this PR:

are internal and do not require a docs change

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

The changes in this PR:

do not affect the execution graph

🛡 What tests cover this?

New benchmark for the interpreter (fibonacci recursive)
Existing tests continue to pass

❓ How to test this?

Run the new benchmark to verify performance improvements
Run existing tests to ensure functionality is preserved

cursor · 2026-01-10T18:18:40Z

PR Summary

Improves MIR interpreter performance and benchmarking while replacing the persistent data-structure backend.

Replace imbl with rpds in MIR; reimplement Value::List and Value::Dict on rpds (API tweaks: insert no longer returns old value, get_mut takes &key, iterator types adjusted)
Interpreter perf: add #[inline]/cold_path hints, optimize SwitchTargets::target() fast paths, reduce copies by passing &Place/&Operand, change locals storage from Option<Value> to Value, require ExactSizeIterator for argument passing, use hint::unlikely in Int ops
Add new benches/interpret.rs (recursive fibonacci) and shared bench harness; refactor transform benches to reuse harness
Core tweaks: add IdVec::reserve, inline IdSlice::{lookup,lookup_mut} and SwitchTargets::otherwise; extend Value/Str/Num From impls
Cargo updates: drop imbl dep, add rpds, add [[bench]] interpret; lockfile updated accordingly

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit b14d4b5. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

indietyp · 2026-01-10T18:19:28Z

Warning

This pull request is not mergeable via GitHub because a downstack PR is open. Once all requirements are satisfied, merge this PR as a stack on Graphite.
Learn more

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

augmentcode · 2026-01-10T18:21:40Z

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Improves HashQL’s MIR interpreter performance and adds benchmarking, mainly by swapping persistent collections and tightening hot-path execution.

Changes:

Replace imbl with rpds for interpreter persistent data structures (List/Dict).
Add a new interpret benchmark (recursive Fibonacci) and factor shared bench harness into benches/run.rs.
Optimize interpreter hot paths with #[inline]/cold_path hints and fewer copies by passing operands/places/constants by reference.
Speed up control-flow dispatch with a fast-path implementation of SwitchTargets::target().
Tighten argument plumbing via ExactSizeIterator bounds to avoid extra counting/copying.
Refactor local storage to avoid Option overhead (grow via fill_until) and add small core helpers like IdVec::reserve.

Technical Notes: Changes are internal to hashql-mir; uses nightly feature gates for branch-hinting and cold-path annotations.

_{🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎}

augmentcode

Review completed. 3 suggestions posted.

Comment augment review to trigger a new review at any time.

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/value/num.rs

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/locals.rs

codspeed-hq · 2026-01-10T18:25:17Z

Merging this PR will create unknown performance changes

⏩ 18 skipped benchmarks¹
🗄️ 12 archived benchmarks run²

_{Comparing bm/be-273-hashql-interpreter-benchmarks (b14d4b5) with bm/be-272-hashql-implement-and-inside-the-mir (6612cd1)³}

18 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. ↩
12 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. ↩
No successful run was found on bm/be-272-hashql-implement-and-inside-the-mir (ca727c1) during the generation of this report, so 156669e was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/value/num.rs

codecov · 2026-01-10T18:35:24Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 76.78571% with 39 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 60.95%. Comparing base (ca727c1) to head (b14d4b5).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/value/mod.rs	36.36%	13 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/value/dict.rs	0.00%	11 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/value/str.rs	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/locals.rs	76.47%	4 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/value/int.rs	0.00%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/value/list.rs	50.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
...local/hashql/mir/src/body/terminator/switch_int.rs	90.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                                Coverage Diff                                 @@
##           bm/be-272-hashql-implement-and-inside-the-mir    #8251       +/-   ##
==================================================================================
- Coverage                                          83.31%   60.95%   -22.36%     
==================================================================================
  Files                                                105     1090      +985     
  Lines                                              14741   110626    +95885     
  Branches                                             380     4583     +4203     
==================================================================================
+ Hits                                               12281    67437    +55156     
- Misses                                              2320    42418    +40098     
- Partials                                             140      771      +631

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	`1.40% <ø> (?)`
apps.hash-api	`0.00% <ø> (?)`
blockprotocol.type-system	`40.84% <ø> (?)`
local.claude-hooks	`0.00% <ø> (?)`
local.harpc-client	`51.24% <ø> (?)`
local.hash-graph-sdk	`10.88% <ø> (?)`
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	`0.00% <ø> (?)`
rust.antsi	`0.00% <ø> (?)`
rust.error-stack	`90.88% <ø> (?)`
rust.harpc-codec	`84.70% <ø> (?)`
rust.harpc-net	`96.16% <ø> (?)`
rust.harpc-tower	`66.80% <ø> (?)`
rust.harpc-types	`0.00% <ø> (?)`
rust.harpc-wire-protocol	`92.23% <ø> (?)`
rust.hash-codec	`72.76% <ø> (?)`
rust.hash-graph-api	`2.89% <ø> (?)`
rust.hash-graph-authorization	`62.47% <ø> (?)`
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	`25.61% <ø> (?)`
rust.hash-graph-store	`30.54% <ø> (?)`
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	`47.95% <ø> (?)`
rust.hash-graph-types	`0.00% <ø> (?)`
rust.hash-graph-validation	`83.45% <ø> (?)`
rust.hashql-ast	`87.25% <ø> (?)`
rust.hashql-compiletest	`46.65% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-core	`81.77% <ø> (?)`
rust.hashql-diagnostics	`72.43% <ø> (?)`
rust.hashql-eval	`68.54% <ø> (?)`
rust.hashql-hir	`89.10% <ø> (?)`
rust.hashql-mir	`87.91% <76.78%> (-0.10%)`	⬇️
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	`94.05% <ø> (?)`

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

vercel · 2026-01-15T13:31:52Z

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

2 Skipped Deployments

Project	Deployment	Review	Updated (UTC)
ds-theme	Ignored	Preview	Jan 15, 2026 3:23pm
hashdotdesign	Ignored	Preview	Jan 15, 2026 3:23pm

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/locals.rs

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/value/mod.rs

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/runtime.rs

github-actions · 2026-01-15T16:35:17Z

Benchmark results

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2002	$$29.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 268 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.195 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$13.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.68 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$43.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 314 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.258 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$25.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 161 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.34 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$31.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 202 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-26.033 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-82.022 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$14.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 100 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-49.060 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.70 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.350 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.695 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.27 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.696 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.20 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.53 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.738 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.718 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.49 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.75 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.681 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.44 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.97 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 8.72 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.44 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.417 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.29 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.87 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.47 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.17 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.22 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.72 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.05 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}13.3 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.14 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.05 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$40.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 176 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.730 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$78.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 371 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.223 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$45.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 223 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.20 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$46.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 180 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.932 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$57.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 309 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$41.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 192 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.389 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$423 \mathrm{ms} \pm 737 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.381 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$98.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 436 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.055 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$88.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 361 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.757 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$289 \mathrm{ms} \pm 680 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.023 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$15.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.308 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$15.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 80.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.87 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$15.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 85.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.451 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$15.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 74.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.744 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$18.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 113 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.809 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$15.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.324 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$15.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 80.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.251 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$15.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.330 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$16.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.33 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$23.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 169 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/block/v/1`	$$30.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 321 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.491 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1`	$$31.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 340 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.719 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1`	$$31.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 307 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1`	$$31.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 315 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.184 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2`	$$30.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 279 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.679 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1`	$$30.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 320 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.798 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1`	$$31.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 355 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.171 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1`	$$29.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 238 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.394 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1`	$$30.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 272 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.427 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: `bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba`	$$8.44 \mathrm{ms} \pm 48.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.003 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$49.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 332 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.608 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$98.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 436 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.211 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$54.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 309 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.289 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$63.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 338 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.141 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$71.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 375 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.566 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$77.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 423 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.835 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$53.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 280 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.097 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$81.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 353 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.956 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$60.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 392 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.872 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$68.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 284 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.378 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$71.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 303 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.290 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$71.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 301 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$130 \mathrm{ms} \pm 753 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.481 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$128 \mathrm{ms} \pm 649 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.668 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$41.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 201 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-47.836 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$590 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.35 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-2.966 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

indietyp added 4 commits January 8, 2026 21:34

feat: checkpoint

8863748

feat: profiling

2bbf90f

feat: performance checkpoint

fd5bf1e

perf: under 5us

f93a221

graphite-app bot assigned indietyp Jan 10, 2026

github-actions bot added area/deps Relates to third-party dependencies (area) area/libs Relates to first-party libraries/crates/packages (area) type/eng > backend Owned by the @backend team labels Jan 10, 2026

indietyp mentioned this pull request Jan 10, 2026

BE-257: HashQL: Implement MIR interpreter with runtime value representation #8245

Open

3 tasks

indietyp mentioned this pull request Jan 10, 2026

BE-272: HashQL: Add numeric addition and subtraction operators to MIR #8250

Open

3 tasks

augmentcode bot reviewed Jan 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/value/num.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/locals.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/locals.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

fix: frac

b0d5bc3

vercel bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 10, 2026 18:23 View deployment

cursor bot reviewed Jan 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/value/num.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

fix: docs

b14d4b5

vercel bot temporarily deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 10, 2026 18:28 Inactive

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-273-hashql-interpreter-benchmarks branch from c65a1f2 to 915f9b9 Compare January 10, 2026 18:30

vercel bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 10, 2026 18:35 View deployment

vercel bot deployed to Preview – hash January 10, 2026 18:37 View deployment

graphite-app bot requested review from a team January 10, 2026 18:52

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-272-hashql-implement-and-inside-the-mir branch from 6612cd1 to d999354 Compare January 15, 2026 13:31

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-273-hashql-interpreter-benchmarks branch from 915f9b9 to 29b0486 Compare January 15, 2026 13:31

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview – hash January 15, 2026 13:35 Failure

vercel bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 15, 2026 13:37 View deployment

cursor bot reviewed Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/locals.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/value/mod.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

cursor bot reviewed Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/runtime.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-272-hashql-implement-and-inside-the-mir branch from d999354 to ca727c1 Compare January 15, 2026 15:22

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-273-hashql-interpreter-benchmarks branch from 29b0486 to b14d4b5 Compare January 15, 2026 15:22

vercel bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 15, 2026 15:27 View deployment

vercel bot deployed to Preview – hash January 15, 2026 15:35 View deployment

BE-273: HashQL: Profile and benchmark MIR interpreter #8251

Are you sure you want to change the base?

BE-273: HashQL: Profile and benchmark MIR interpreter #8251

Uh oh!

Conversation

indietyp commented Jan 10, 2026

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

🔍 What does this change?

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

🛡 What tests cover this?

❓ How to test this?

Uh oh!

cursor bot commented Jan 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

PR Summary

Uh oh!

indietyp commented Jan 10, 2026

Uh oh!

augmentcode bot commented Jan 10, 2026

Uh oh!

augmentcode bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq bot commented Jan 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Merging this PR will create unknown performance changes

Footnotes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

vercel bot commented Jan 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 15, 2026

Benchmark results

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

policy_resolution_medium

policy_resolution_none

policy_resolution_small

read_scaling_complete

read_scaling_linkless

representative_read_entity

representative_read_entity_type

representative_read_multiple_entities

scenarios

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

cursor bot commented Jan 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codspeed-hq bot commented Jan 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jan 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

vercel bot commented Jan 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading