Skip to content

Execute primitive numeric operators with RowFn - #9345

Draft
connortsui20 wants to merge 6 commits into
ct/row-fn-frameworkfrom
ct/row-fn-numeric-operators
Draft

Execute primitive numeric operators with RowFn#9345
connortsui20 wants to merge 6 commits into
ct/row-fn-frameworkfrom
ct/row-fn-numeric-operators

Opt numeric operators into unstable RowFn

b7eb750
Select commit
Loading
Failed to load commit list.
CodSpeed HQ / CodSpeed Performance Analysis failed Aug 13, 2026 in 0s

Performance Regression: -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

Open in CodSpeed

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. ↩

View more details on CodSpeed HQ