BE-481: HashQL: Reify null and empty tuple as unit constants

[indietyp]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

During MIR reification, null primitive values and empty tuples were not being lowered to the canonical unit constant (). This meant that null literals and #tuple: [] expressions were handled inconsistently compared to other unit-like values. This PR ensures both are promoted to Constant::Unit during reification, aligning them with the existing treatment of unit expressions.

🔍 What does this change?

• Primitive::Null is now matched before the general Primitive arm in both atom.rs and rvalue.rs, lowering it directly to Constant::Unit instead of falling through to the opaque constant path.
• Empty tuples (Tuple { fields } where fields.is_empty()) are now lowered to Constant::Unit in rvalue.rs rather than being constructed as a zero-field aggregate.
• Existing snapshot tests for filter-aggressive have been updated to reflect that null comparisons now display as == () rather than == null in MIR output.

🛡 What tests cover this?

• New UI test reify/null-value verifies that a null literal is reified as a unit constant.
• New UI test reify/null-value-in-binary verifies that null values used in binary expressions (e.g. equality comparisons) are correctly promoted to ().
• New UI test reify/empty-tuple verifies that an empty tuple expression is reified as a unit constant.

❓ How to test this?

1. Run the MIR UI tests: cargo test -p hashql-mir
2. Confirm all new and existing snapshot tests pass.

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

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jun 19, 2026 3:27pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Jun 19, 2026 3:27pm

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	Jun 19, 2026 3:27pm

[cursor]

PR Summary

Low Risk
Small, localized reify-path change with snapshot and UI test coverage; no auth, data, or runtime graph impact.

Overview
MIR reification now treats null and #tuple: [] as the canonical unit value () instead of opaque null primitives or zero-field tuple aggregates.

atom.rs and rvalue.rs add dedicated Primitive::Null arms that lower to Constant::Unit. rvalue.rs also maps empty tuples to a unit load rather than building an empty AggregateKind::Tuple.

Downstream MIR text changes accordingly (e.g. == null becomes == () in filter-aggressive snapshots). New UI tests cover standalone null, null in binary ==, and empty tuple reification.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 942f634. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[indietyp]

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

• BE-607: HashQL: Refactor ModuleRegistry into builder/immutable split with allocator-generic stdlib construction #8887
• BE-538: HashQL: Permission system integration #8882
• BE-71: HashQL: Consolidate AST special-form expansion stages into one #8870
• BE-481: HashQL: Reify null and empty tuple as unit constants #8853 👈 (View in Graphite)
• BE-537, BE-537: hgraph: REST /hashql endpoint with E2E tests #8827
• BE-592: HashQL: Remove old eval graph path and core value types #8841
• BE-590: hgraph: Refactor entity query handlers into entity/query submodule #8840
• BE-587, BE-588: HashQL: Introduce CodeGenerationContext/CodeExecutionContext split and eval-stage Interner #8839
• BE-581, BE-589: HashQL: Introduce pass::lower/pass::place pipeline facades and fix cached constructor closure bug #8838
• BE-585, BE-591: HashQL: Add MIR interpreter test suite and refactor diagnostic categories #8837
• BE-583, BE-584, BE-586: HashQL: Add HeapPool, improve spans, and propagate Critical severity through diagnostics #8836
• BE-582: HashQL: Change opaque types from invariant to covariant #8835
• main

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

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR standardizes MIR reification so that null literals and empty tuple literals are lowered to the canonical unit constant Constant::Unit (()), aligning them with existing unit-expression handling and making MIR output consistent.

Changes:

• Reify Primitive::Null directly into Constant::Unit in both atom and rvalue lowering.
• Reify empty tuple literals (#tuple: []) into Constant::Unit instead of a zero-field tuple aggregate.
• Add new MIR UI tests for null and empty tuple reification, and update an existing snapshot to reflect == () comparisons.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/reify/rvalue.rs	Lowers null primitives and empty tuple data nodes to Constant::Unit during rvalue reification.
libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/reify/atom.rs	Lowers null primitives to Constant::Unit when reifying atom operands.
libs/@local/hashql/mir/tests/ui/reify/null-value.jsonc	Adds UI test input asserting null literal is promoted to unit.
libs/@local/hashql/mir/tests/ui/reify/null-value.stdout	Adds expected MIR output showing return () for null.
libs/@local/hashql/mir/tests/ui/reify/null-value-in-binary.jsonc	Adds UI test input asserting null promotion inside a binary expression.
libs/@local/hashql/mir/tests/ui/reify/null-value-in-binary.stdout	Adds expected MIR output showing null operands lowered to () before comparison.
libs/@local/hashql/mir/tests/ui/reify/empty-tuple.jsonc	Adds UI test input asserting empty tuple literal is promoted to unit.
libs/@local/hashql/mir/tests/ui/reify/empty-tuple.stdout	Adds expected MIR output showing empty tuple lowered to ().
libs/@local/hashql/mir/tests/ui/pass/inline/filter-aggressive.stdout	Updates snapshot output to reflect null comparisons now printing as == ().

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 24 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 56 skipped benchmarks¹

---

_{Comparing bm/be-481-hashql-lower-null-to-constantunit-during-reification (942f634) with bm/be-537-hashql-remove-old-backend-wire-up-hashql-in-the-api (1c0b8e6)}

Footnotes

1. 56 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. ↩

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 46.09%. Comparing base (1c0b8e6) to head (942f634).

Additional details and impacted files

@@                                        Coverage Diff                                         @@
##           bm/be-537-hashql-remove-old-backend-wire-up-hashql-in-the-api    #8853       +/-   ##
==================================================================================================
- Coverage                                                          59.30%   46.09%   -13.22%     
==================================================================================================
  Files                                                               1340      665      -675     
  Lines                                                             130184    42296    -87888     
  Branches                                                            5877     3590     -2287     
==================================================================================================
- Hits                                                               77210    19496    -57714     
+ Misses                                                             52074    22540    -29534     
+ Partials                                                             900      260      -640     

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-py	?
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.39% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	0.00% <ø> (ø)
backend-integration-tests	?
blockprotocol.type-system	?
deer	?
error-stack	?
local.claude-hooks	?
local.harpc-client	?
local.hash-backend-utils	2.81% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	9.63% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-subgraph	?
rust.antsi	?
rust.deer	?
rust.error-stack	?
rust.harpc-codec	?
rust.harpc-net	?
rust.harpc-tower	?
rust.harpc-types	?
rust.harpc-wire-protocol	?
rust.hash-codec	?
rust.hash-graph-api	7.81% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	?
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	?
rust.hash-graph-store	?
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	?
rust.hash-graph-types	?
rust.hash-graph-validation	?
rust.hashql-ast	?
rust.hashql-compiletest	28.41% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	?
rust.hashql-diagnostics	?
rust.hashql-eval	79.44% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	?
rust.hashql-mir	88.05% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	?
rust.sarif	?
sarif	?
tests.hash-backend-integration	?
unit-tests	?

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.

[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	$$27.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 225 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.329 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.344 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$14.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 92.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$43.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 364 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.702 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 138 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.718 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$23.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 199 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.348 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$29.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 195 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.617 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.89 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.707 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 141 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.480 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.484 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.219 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 35.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.109 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.25 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.027 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.39 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.27 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.775 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.079 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.608 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.17 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.235 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.487 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.735 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.235 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.87 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.577 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.290 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.09 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.999 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.388 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.228 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.690 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.465 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.781 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.39 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.536 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.128 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$56.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 392 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.840 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$47.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 232 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.839 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$51.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 326 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.473 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$45.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 237 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.255 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$62.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 446 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.195 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$63.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 409 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.191 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$57.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 292 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.557 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 515 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.643 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$47.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 217 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.215 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$278 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.15 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.097 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$20.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 119 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.809 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$20.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 133 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.237 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$21.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 151 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.182 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$20.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 127 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.574 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$25.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 161 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.283 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$20.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 131 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$20.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 145 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.093 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$20.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 143 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$20.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 154 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.119 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$27.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 257 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.500 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$35.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 306 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.835 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$35.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 305 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.567 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$35.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 448 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.868 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$35.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 400 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.061 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$35.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 452 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.41 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$35.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 338 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.059 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$34.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 404 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.940 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$34.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 313 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.150 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$34.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 318 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.296 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 58.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.409 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$94.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 750 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.256 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$150 \mathrm{ms} \pm 775 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.921 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$102 \mathrm{ms} \pm 849 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.185 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$113 \mathrm{ms} \pm 721 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.288 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$120 \mathrm{ms} \pm 769 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.566 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$129 \mathrm{ms} \pm 702 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.450 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$104 \mathrm{ms} \pm 792 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.406 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$134 \mathrm{ms} \pm 709 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.939 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$112 \mathrm{ms} \pm 694 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.848 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 692 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.224 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$124 \mathrm{ms} \pm 856 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.132 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$124 \mathrm{ms} \pm 711 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.369 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$182 \mathrm{ms} \pm 897 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.700 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$197 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.04 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}9.34 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$108 \mathrm{ms} \pm 666 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}151 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$599 \mathrm{ms} \pm 3.67 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}10.3 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.