[indietyp]

Upgrade from Vitest 4 to Vitest 5, mostly straightforward, the only change are that mocks are now per function, which required a change inside of brunch.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
hash	Ready	Preview	Oct 21, 2026 11:41am UTC
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Oct 21, 2026 11:41am UTC
petrinaut-docs	Ready	Preview	Oct 21, 2026 11:41am UTC

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	Oct 21, 2026 11:41am UTC

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will improve performance by 18.95%

1 warning

⚠️ Unable to measure the execution of 6 benchmarks

These benchmarks measured no execution time, so their results are not comparable and count as unchanged. This usually happens when the compiler removes the code under test.

Prevent compiler optimizations

See affected benchmarks

⚡ 2 improved benchmarks
✅ 96 untouched benchmarks

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚡	bit_matrix/dense/iter_row[64]	166.4 ns	137.2 ns	+21.26%
⚡	bit_matrix/dense/iter_row[200]	203.9 ns	174.7 ns	+16.69%

Tip

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

---

_{Comparing bm/fe-1862-upgrade-to-vite-5 (4e0c06b) with bm/h-6787-replace-tsgo-with-typescript-7 (89f9cea)}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 12 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 68.03%. Comparing base (89f9cea) to head (4e0c06b).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ient/typescript/tests/wire-protocol/codec.bench.ts	0.00%	12 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                             Coverage Diff                              @@
##           bm/h-6787-replace-tsgo-with-typescript-7    #9945      +/-   ##
============================================================================
- Coverage                                     68.04%   68.03%   -0.01%     
============================================================================
  Files                                          2006     2006              
  Lines                                        206278   206287       +9     
  Branches                                       8815     8815              
============================================================================
- Hits                                         140357   140354       -3     
- Misses                                        64245    64258      +13     
+ Partials                                       1676     1675       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	7.46% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
apps.hash-api	15.59% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system	41.73% <ø> (ø)
durable-kernel	86.65% <ø> (ø)
error-stack	90.55% <ø> (ø)
harpc-codec	84.61% <ø> (ø)
harpc-net	96.25% <ø> (-0.05%)	⬇️
harpc-tower	67.11% <ø> (ø)
harpc-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
harpc-wire-protocol	93.85% <ø> (ø)
hash-codec	72.09% <ø> (ø)
hash-config	83.57% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph	21.07% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-api	39.82% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-atlas	80.01% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-authentication	96.71% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-authorization	68.47% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-embeddings	91.92% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-postgres-store	31.60% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-store	50.82% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-temporal-versioning	50.53% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-validation	85.37% <ø> (ø)
hash-integrations-definition	95.05% <ø> (ø)
hash-middleware	87.62% <ø> (ø)
hash-secret	99.50% <ø> (ø)
hashql-ast	90.01% <ø> (ø)
hashql-compiletest	28.71% <ø> (ø)
hashql-core	81.41% <ø> (ø)
hashql-diagnostics	72.85% <ø> (ø)
hashql-eval	81.55% <ø> (ø)
hashql-hir	89.10% <ø> (ø)
hashql-mir	87.22% <ø> (ø)
hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.77% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client	51.49% <0.00%> (-0.07%)	⬇️
local.hash-backend-utils	6.21% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	9.79% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	32.22% <ø> (ø)
problematic	90.09% <ø> (ø)
railroad-plugin	45.28% <ø> (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.

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Broad test-tooling and lockfile upgrade with targeted test fixes; production app code is largely unchanged, but CI behavior and mock/bench semantics can shift until the full suite is green.

Overview
Upgrades the monorepo from Vitest 4 to Vitest 5 via the Yarn catalog (vitest 5.0.2, plus aligned @vitest/coverage-istanbul, @vitest/browser-playwright, and @fast-check/vitest). Workspace packages move off pinned Vitest-related versions to catalog: and add explicit vite devDependencies where Vitest 5 now requires Vite as a non-optional peer.

The patched @effect/vitest registers Effect fiber cleanup with (ctx.onTestFinished ?? V.onTestFinished) so teardown works across Vitest 4/5 test-context APIs without leaking fibers in concurrent runs. provider-registration.test.ts snapshots setProvider / instrument mock results in beforeAll because Vitest 5 treats mocks as per-function, so later tests no longer see the same mock.calls history. codec.bench.ts adopts Vitest 5’s bench API (test + bench().run() instead of top-level bench).

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit fbb2a7a. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[alex-e-leon]

LGTM - just the one comment about adding vite to hash-frontend

[alex-e-leon]

Why is vite being added as a dependency - I don't think hash-frontend uses vite? (or is it a peer dep for vitest 5)

[indietyp]

It's a peer dependency, vitest requires it, but it's no longer installed since vitest 5, so we need to install it ourselves.

[github-actions]

Benchmark results

hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2002	$$27.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 285 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.271 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.53 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.302 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$12.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 129 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.906 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$44.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 522 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.468 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 146 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.888 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$24.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 257 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.188 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 253 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.100 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.81 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.545 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$14.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 144 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.366 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$3.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.38 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 50.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.64 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.624 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 41.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.45 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.035 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.438 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.23 \mathrm{ms} \pm 39.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.472 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.78 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.213 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.74 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.817 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.587 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.15 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.934 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.337 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.23 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.332 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.467 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.283 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.615 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 35.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.696 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.09 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.499 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.826 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.693 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.478 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.44 \mathrm{ms} \pm 35.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.359 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$32.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 221 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.727 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$73.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 648 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.45 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$35.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 317 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.819 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$40.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 338 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.374 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$41.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 354 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.734 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$34.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 235 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.359 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$432 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.53 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}1.45 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$92.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 680 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.540 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$78.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 501 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.148 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$279 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.17 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-11.109 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$10.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.120 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$10.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.476 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.746 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 99.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.600 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.960 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 110 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.874 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 97.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.69 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 89.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.119 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$10.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.697 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.873 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 96.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.952 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.291 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 102 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.608 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 98.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.988 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 84.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.218 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 88.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.290 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 88.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.559 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 103 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.354 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 88.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.780 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 72.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.277 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$56.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 552 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.907 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$109 \mathrm{ms} \pm 610 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.131 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$63.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 832 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.058 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$72.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 658 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.003 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$81.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 744 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.700 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$87.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 740 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.360 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$46.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 321 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.355 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$73.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 502 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.113 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$54.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 523 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.367 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$62.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 497 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.608 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$63.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 530 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.234 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$64.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 623 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.441 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$114 \mathrm{ms} \pm 814 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.364 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$126 \mathrm{ms} \pm 910 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.986 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$18.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 167 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-21.692 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$514 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.95 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-1.097 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

[cursor]

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

^{❌ Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with cloud agents, enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.}

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit fbb2a7a. Configure here.}