do not merge: Sub seg read - #9390
Performance Regression: -0.74%
⚠️ 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.
⚡ 3 improved benchmarks
❌ 3 regressed benchmarks
✅ 1988 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 89 skipped benchmarks1
Warning
Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.
Performance Changes
| Mode | Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | Simulation | warm[(64, 256)] |
11.2 ms | 12.9 ms | -13.45% |
| ❌ | Simulation | slice_primitive_tight_loop[10000] |
422.4 µs | 479.6 µs | -11.92% |
| ❌ | Simulation | compress_fsst[(1000, 64, 8)] |
1 ms | 1.1 ms | -10.76% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | take[small_m/shuffled/primitive/nonnull/chunks=16384/indices=16] |
1.2 ms | 1 ms | +13.69% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | compact[(4096, 90)] |
1.9 µs | 1.7 µs | +11.66% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | compact[(16384, 90)] |
2 µs | 1.8 µs | +10.77% |
Tip
Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.
Comparing ji/partial-flat-segment-reads (79b2daa) with develop (f8d4db9)
Footnotes
-
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. ↩