Update Rust toolchains to nightly-2026-05-27

[hash-worker]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Update	Change
rust	patch	2026-04-13 → 2026-05-27

---

Warning

Some dependencies could not be looked up. Check the Dependency Dashboard for more information.

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: (UTC)

• Branch creation
  • "before 11am"
• Automerge
  • "before 4am every weekday,every weekend"

🚦 Automerge: Enabled.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR has been generated by Renovate Bot.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jun 8, 2026 11:38am
petrinaut	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jun 8, 2026 11:38am

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	Jun 8, 2026 11:38am

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Wide mechanical refactors across graph API, migrations, HaRPC, and validation trait surfaces; behavior should be unchanged but compile-time trait/async matching errors could hide subtle call-site issues.

Overview
Bumps the workspace Rust toolchain from nightly-2026-04-13 to nightly-2026-06-08 and refreshes the pinned nightly badge in error-stack docs.

To stay compatible with newer compiler/clippy behavior, many synchronous or trivially-async APIs are refactored from async fn to ordinary fn returning impl Future (often core::future::ready(...)), including REST FromRequestParts extractors, HaRPC EchoSystem server impls, migration up/down stubs, CLI Command::execute, postgres all_migrations / synchronize_action_hierarchies, and the validation test Provider trait shims. Validation’s closed data-type lookup is split into a sync get_closed_data_type_by_uuid_impl used by the new future-returning trait method.

const impl replaces impl const across HashQL (diagnostics, HasId, Int conversions, graph accessors). core::io is adopted instead of std::io in several crates via the core_io feature. Clippy allowlists gain inline_modules and inline_trait_bounds; a few trivial cleanups (debug_assert_eq, format strings, redundant borrows) ride along.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 94aedab. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Updates the repo Rust toolchain to nightly-2026-04-27 (from nightly-2026-04-13).

Changes: Aligns rust-toolchain.toml and the error-stack Rust version badges/documentation headers to reference the new nightly snapshot.

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

[augmentcode]

Review completed. No suggestions at this time.

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

[TimDiekmann]

Should finally fix the bug about incremental compilation.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 23.07692% with 20 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 59.13%. Comparing base (f2b4309) to head (94aedab).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
libs/@local/graph/api/src/rest/mod.rs	0.00%	16 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/graph/api/src/rpc/echo.rs	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/body/terminator/mod.rs	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8682   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   59.13%   59.13%           
=======================================
  Files        1346     1346           
  Lines      130077   130018   -59     
  Branches     5883     5883           
=======================================
- Hits        76923    76890   -33     
+ Misses      52248    52222   -26     
  Partials      906      906           

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.39% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-backend-utils	2.81% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	9.63% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-api	2.51% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
rust.hashql-compiletest	28.26% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	75.69% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	87.05% <85.71%> (ø)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

⚡ 4 improved benchmarks
❌ 5 (👁 5) regressed benchmarks
✅ 71 untouched benchmarks

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚡	diamond	12.2 µs	10.8 µs	+12.38%
⚡	complex	18.1 µs	16.2 µs	+11.84%
⚡	linear	7.7 µs	6.9 µs	+11.41%
👁	bit_matrix/dense/transitive_closure[16]	4.8 µs	5.9 µs	-18.82%
👁	bit_matrix/dense/transitive_closure[200]	754.4 µs	907 µs	-16.82%
👁	bit_matrix/dense/transitive_closure[64]	56.4 µs	71 µs	-20.5%
👁	bit_matrix/sparse/union_rows[200]	12.1 µs	13.8 µs	-12.94%
👁	bit_matrix/sparse/union_rows[64]	3.9 µs	4.5 µs	-12.16%
👁	pattern_match_constant	209.2 ns	180 ns	+16.2%

Tip

Curious why this is faster? Comment @codspeedbot explain why this is faster on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing deps/rs/rust-toolchains (94aedab) with main (f2b4309)}

[TimDiekmann]

@copilot fix the linting issues

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[Copilot]

@copilot fix the linting issues

Fixed in commit 2f0d2b8. The changes address 4 clippy warnings introduced by the new nightly:

• clippy::missing_const_for_fn: Added const to targets, targets_mut, and values in hashql/mir/src/body/terminator/switch_int.rs, and to as_slice in hashql/diagnostics/src/diagnostic/label.rs
• clippy::std_instead_of_core: Changed std::io::ErrorKind to core::io::ErrorKind in harpc/net/src/session/server/test.rs and repo-chores/rust/src/sync_turborepo/mod.rs

See the output of git range-diff at https://github.com/hashintel/hash/actions/runs/25164909600

[TimDiekmann]

I think we need to bump cargo-insta or rustix: mitsuhiko/insta#905. I have not investigated further, but the currently nightly having issues with the rustc attribute.

[TimDiekmann]

Is it a new clippy lint that requires to use ready instead of async? I don't like it.

[indietyp]

correct, it's: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/?search=async#unused_async_trait_impl. There are semantic and performance implications, hence why it is inside of pedantic and not inside of restrictions.

[github-actions]

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	$$27.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 229 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.623 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 108 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.20 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$43.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 412 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.137 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 118 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$24.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 210 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.844 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 227 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.055 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 115 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.853 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.212 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.279 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.196 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 44.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.734 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.54 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.13 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.293 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.40 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.189 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.49 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.757 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.808 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.70 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.53 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.033 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.80 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.63 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.07 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.90 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.74 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.682 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.818 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.250 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.338 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.410 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.993 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$54.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 349 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.522 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$46.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 242 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.520 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$50.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 252 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.398 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$44.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 250 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.38 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$64.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 360 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.230 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$62.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 409 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.585 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$56.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 436 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.359 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 639 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$47.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 226 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$297 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.17 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.575 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$19.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.613 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$19.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 114 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.849 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$20.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 125 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.127 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 109 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.035 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$25.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 183 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.551 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$19.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 113 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$20.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 146 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$19.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 118 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$20.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 151 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.110 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$27.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 240 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.069 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$35.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 337 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.457 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$35.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 316 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.34 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$35.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 316 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.385 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$34.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 395 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.358 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$34.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 306 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.155 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$35.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 330 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.214 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$35.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 306 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.138 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$34.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 331 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.952 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$35.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 321 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.527 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.70 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.407 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$95.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 671 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$150 \mathrm{ms} \pm 860 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.300 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$103 \mathrm{ms} \pm 716 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.916 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$113 \mathrm{ms} \pm 699 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.084 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 819 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.392 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$129 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.05 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-0.076 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 650 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.264 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$134 \mathrm{ms} \pm 714 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.305 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$112 \mathrm{ms} \pm 660 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.194 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 615 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.358 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$122 \mathrm{ms} \pm 800 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.415 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$122 \mathrm{ms} \pm 637 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.332 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$193 \mathrm{ms} \pm 992 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.93 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$203 \mathrm{ms} \pm 905 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$108 \mathrm{ms} \pm 732 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}156 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$602 \mathrm{ms} \pm 3.41 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}8.00 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph