Execute primitive numeric operators with RowFn

[connortsui20]

Rationale for this change

Makes primitive arithmetic the first production user of RowFn. Binary keeps its registered identity and existing scalar-function hooks.

• Progress towards: Epic: Row-oriented scalar functions #9128
• API tracking: Tracking Issue: Define the RowFn API #9129
• Progress towards: Tracking Issue: Execute RowFn over Vortex arrays #9130

What changes are included in this PR?

Checked add, subtract, and multiply reduce compact failure evidence outside their vector loops. Integer division stops at the first failure and writes directly into uninitialized output. Decimal arithmetic remains on its existing columnar path.

With Rust 1.97.1 and LLVM 22.1.6, optimized IR and assembly confirm that mixed-constant add, subtract, and multiply vectorize under the 16-CGU, no-LTO benchmark profile. The earlier 4.6–7.5x mixed-constant regressions were measured before the output-iterator fix in #9353 and no longer describe this branch.

What APIs are changed? Are there any user-facing changes?

There are no public API changes. Primitive arithmetic delegates execution to the private NumericBinary row kernel.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 7.14%

⚠️ 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.

⚡ 8 improved benchmarks
❌ 26 regressed benchmarks
✅ 1960 untouched benchmarks
🆕 25 new benchmarks
⏩ 89 skipped benchmarks¹

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	Simulation	mul_u8_nonnull	162.4 µs	192 µs	-15.39%
❌	Simulation	points	162.3 µs	191.2 µs	-15.14%
❌	Simulation	cold_misaligned[(64, 256)]	4.4 ms	5.1 ms	-14.91%
❌	Simulation	linestrings	164.7 µs	193.4 µs	-14.87%
❌	Simulation	polygons	166 µs	194.4 µs	-14.59%
❌	Simulation	two_vertex_lines	279.1 µs	326.1 µs	-14.41%
❌	Simulation	multipolygon_random_nulls	745.7 µs	864.8 µs	-13.77%
❌	Simulation	nullable_two_vertex_lines	326 µs	373.6 µs	-12.73%
❌	Simulation	list_i32_large	214.1 µs	245.3 µs	-12.72%
❌	Simulation	take_filter_list_slice_mask_random_indices[768, 50]	210.5 µs	239 µs	-11.93%
❌	Simulation	take_filter_list_random_mask_sequential_indices[768, 50]	207.5 µs	235.4 µs	-11.85%
❌	Simulation	take_filter_list_random_mask_sequential_indices[256, 50]	211.4 µs	239.7 µs	-11.82%
❌	Simulation	take_filter_list_small_random_mask_random_indices[256, 10]	206 µs	233.4 µs	-11.74%
❌	Simulation	take_filter_list_small_random_mask_random_indices[768, 10]	214.2 µs	242.4 µs	-11.65%
❌	Simulation	list_sum_small	229.6 µs	259.8 µs	-11.64%
❌	Simulation	take_filter_list_slice_mask_random_indices[256, 50]	209.8 µs	237.4 µs	-11.63%
❌	Simulation	take_filter_list_small_uncached_random_mask_random_indices[256, 10]	205.8 µs	232.8 µs	-11.6%
❌	Simulation	take_filter_list_nullable_random_mask_random_indices[256, 50]	229.3 µs	258.2 µs	-11.2%
❌	Simulation	take_filter_list_random_mask_random_indices[768, 50]	228 µs	256.6 µs	-11.16%
❌	Simulation	take_filter_list_small_uncached_random_mask_random_indices[768, 10]	214.6 µs	241.1 µs	-10.99%
...	...	...	...	...	...

ℹ️ Only the first 20 benchmarks are displayed. Go to the app to view all benchmarks.

Tip

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

---

_{Comparing ct/row-fn-numeric-operators (b7eb750) with ct/row-fn-framework (0eb4dd3)²}

Footnotes

1. 89 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 ct/row-fn-framework (219e00a) during the generation of this report, so edf8937 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[connortsui20]

Here are the local arithmetic benchmark results from the final Rust 1.97.1 run.

The comparison used a develop baseline with benchmark-only backfills (1edd0fca) and the full RowFn stack (8ca9fc73). Later stack layers do not change the primitive arithmetic source, but unrelated code-placement effects can still affect these binaries.

The machine was an AMD Ryzen 9 7950X running Linux. The build used rustc 1.97.1, LLVM 22.1.6, one CGU, fat LTO, and -C target-cpu=native. Each target used two warm runs and seven alternating measured pairs. Each process used 100 samples with a 0.25–0.5 second measurement window on CPU 4.

Negative changes are faster. The values are medians across the seven paired runs.

The main results are:

• Large per-row add, subtract, and multiply range from 2.67% faster to 4.84% slower.
• Large mixed-constant multiply improves by 18.66–19.46%.
• LLVM 22 does not vectorize the large mixed-constant add and subtract loops. These cases are 4.62–5.22x slower.
• mul_i32_constant is 7.46x slower for the same LLVM 22 code-generation problem.
• Small batches expose the fixed cost of RowFn dispatch and output construction.

A separate comparison covered the later naming and structural cleanup. All 24 RowFn matrix cases remained between 2.59% faster and 1.09% slower.

RowFn arithmetic matrix: 24 cases

Operator	Rows	Inputs	Baseline	RowFn	Change
Add	128	per-row × per-row	672.2 ns	879.7 ns	+30.87%
Add	128	per-row × constant	687.2 ns	1.499 µs	+116.56%
Add	128	constant × per-row	739.7 ns	1.519 µs	+105.35%
Add	128	per-row × nullable constant	729.7 ns	1.799 µs	+146.54%
Add	32,768	per-row × per-row	7.029 µs	7.309 µs	+4.84%
Add	32,768	per-row × constant	4.599 µs	22.820 µs	+395.76%
Add	32,768	constant × per-row	4.619 µs	24.120 µs	+421.76%
Add	32,768	per-row × nullable constant	4.609 µs	23.150 µs	+402.27%
Subtract	128	per-row × per-row	667.2 ns	859.7 ns	+28.85%
Subtract	128	per-row × constant	682.2 ns	1.499 µs	+118.79%
Subtract	128	constant × per-row	729.7 ns	1.519 µs	+109.54%
Subtract	128	per-row × nullable constant	694.7 ns	1.809 µs	+160.84%
Subtract	32,768	per-row × per-row	7.149 µs	7.319 µs	+3.28%
Subtract	32,768	per-row × constant	4.639 µs	22.130 µs	+377.04%
Subtract	32,768	constant × per-row	4.639 µs	23.570 µs	+407.87%
Subtract	32,768	per-row × nullable constant	4.649 µs	22.450 µs	+382.90%
Multiply	128	per-row × per-row	754.7 ns	929.7 ns	+23.19%
Multiply	128	per-row × constant	794.7 ns	1.499 µs	+91.03%
Multiply	128	constant × per-row	839.7 ns	1.519 µs	+81.12%
Multiply	128	per-row × nullable constant	794.7 ns	1.809 µs	+126.37%
Multiply	32,768	per-row × per-row	24.790 µs	24.140 µs	-2.67%
Multiply	32,768	per-row × constant	29.280 µs	23.570 µs	-19.41%
Multiply	32,768	constant × per-row	29.310 µs	23.580 µs	-19.46%
Multiply	32,768	per-row × nullable constant	29.280 µs	23.870 µs	-18.66%

Existing arithmetic cases and controls: 28 cases

Benchmark	Baseline	RowFn stack	Change
mul_i32_constant	3.609 µs	26.910 µs	+645.64%
add_i64_constant	4.499 µs	22.780 µs	+406.33%
sub_i64_constant	4.819 µs	22.260 µs	+361.92%
mul_i8_nonnull	1.789 µs	1.959 µs	+9.45%
mul_i16_nonnull	2.409 µs	2.599 µs	+7.89%
mul_u8_nonnull	1.849 µs	1.999 µs	+7.53%
mul_u16_nonnull	2.149 µs	2.319 µs	+7.45%
add_i32_nonnull	3.569 µs	3.739 µs	+5.04%
mul_i32_nonnull	4.099 µs	4.309 µs	+4.89%
mul_u32_nonnull	3.649 µs	3.839 µs	+4.40%
add_u32_nonnull	3.609 µs	3.739 µs	+3.61%
add_i64_nonnull	6.459 µs	6.659 µs	+3.08%
and_bool_nullable	2.019 µs	2.069 µs	+2.46%
mul_i32_nullable	4.969 µs	5.049 µs	+1.40%
div_i64_nonnull	44.730 µs	44.900 µs	+0.34%
mul_decimal_i128_nullable	63.420 µs	63.610 µs	+0.27%
lt_i64_nullable	4.709 µs	4.719 µs	+0.21%
add_decimal_i128_nullable	121.200 µs	121.400 µs	+0.17%
mul_decimal_i64_nonnull	16.100 µs	16.120 µs	+0.12%
add_decimal_i64_nonnull	65.620 µs	65.590 µs	+0.05%
div_decimal_i64_nonnull	63.960 µs	63.960 µs	+0.02%
add_i64_nullable	7.449 µs	7.449 µs	-0.27%
div_decimal_i128_nullable	166.600 µs	165.900 µs	-0.36%
eq_i64_constant	2.719 µs	2.709 µs	-0.37%
or_bool_constant	869.7 ns	859.7 ns	-1.15%
mul_i64_nonnull	24.680 µs	23.970 µs	-2.80%
mul_u64_nonnull	19.300 µs	18.640 µs	-3.42%
div_i64_nullable	not present	40.610 µs	candidate only

div_i64_nullable was new in the candidate inventory, so it has no paired develop result.