SRE-231: Enable self-hosted benchmark runners

[indietyp]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Update the benchmark workflow to run on self-hosted runners and add security checks to prevent running benchmarks on forks.

🔍 What does this change?

• Changes the runner for benchmark jobs from ubuntu-24.04 to [self-hosted, bench-lg] for better performance
• Adds conditional checks to ensure benchmarks only run on push events or pull requests from the same repository
• Prevents benchmark execution on pull requests from forks for security reasons
• Updates the passed job to maintain the same security constraints

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

🛡 What tests cover this?

• This change affects CI infrastructure and will be tested when the workflow runs

❓ How to test this?

1. Create a PR from this branch
2. Verify that benchmarks run correctly on self-hosted runners for internal PRs
3. Verify that benchmarks don't run on PRs from forks

[cursor]

PR Summary

Shifts benchmark execution to controlled self-hosted runners and introduces a bench-specific external-services setup with Postgres tuning.

• Bench workflow: run setup, unit, and integration jobs on [self-hosted, bench-lg]; add conditions to only run on pushes or same-repo PRs; update passed job gating; remove disk cleanup steps; add explicit external-services teardown and log cleanup; minor tweaks (disable Rust install in setup, artifact handling)
• External services: add docker-compose.bench.yml and postgresql.bench.conf (higher shm_size, tuned buffers/cache, synchronous_commit=off); new deploy:bench and root external-services:bench scripts
• Actions: install-tools supports caching on non–self-hosted runners via mise-action cache flag

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit b06cad1. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[indietyp]

• SRE-231: Enable self-hosted benchmark runners #8212 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

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

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Moves benchmark CI onto self-hosted runners while preventing untrusted fork PR code from executing on that infrastructure.

Changes:

• Switches `setup`, `unit-benches`, and `integration-benches` from `ubuntu-24.04` to `runs-on: [self-hosted, bench-lg]`.
• Adds job-level `if:` guards so benches run only on `push` events (to `main`) or PRs whose head repo matches `github.repository`.
• Updates the `passed` aggregator job to follow the same security constraints and pins it to `ubuntu-24.04`.

Technical Note: The new guards are aimed at keeping self-hosted runners from executing forked PR code while preserving internal benchmarking behavior.

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

[augmentcode]

Review completed. 1 suggestions posted.

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

[augmentcode]

This guard prevents passed from running on fork PRs, but optimize-ci still runs for fork PRs and uses GRAPHITE_CI_OPTIMIZER_TOKEN; if secrets aren’t provided to forks, the workflow could still fail early. Consider applying a similar fork-safety if: to optimize-ci (or ensuring it no-ops without the token) so fork PRs don’t end up with a failing Bench check.

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 58.89%. Comparing base (b6338db) to head (b06cad1).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8212      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   58.90%   58.89%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1193     1193              
  Lines      112723   112723              
  Branches     5013     5013              
==========================================
- Hits        66394    66393       -1     
- Misses      45571    45572       +1     
  Partials      758      758              

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.32% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	0.00% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system	40.84% <ø> (ø)
local.claude-hooks	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client	51.24% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	10.88% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.14% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
rust.harpc-tower	66.80% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-wire-protocol	92.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-codec	72.76% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-api	2.89% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.47% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	25.61% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	30.54% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	47.95% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-validation	83.45% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-ast	87.25% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	46.65% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	82.36% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.43% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	68.54% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.10% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	88.18% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.05% <ø> (ø)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 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]

Fork check on passed job blocks fork PR status

The fork check added to the passed job prevents any status check from being reported for fork PRs. Unlike the benchmark jobs that run on [self-hosted, bench-lg] and need protection from untrusted code, the passed job runs on GitHub-hosted ubuntu-24.04 and only checks job result strings — it doesn't execute any PR code. Adding the fork check here means fork PRs receive no "Benches passed" status, which could block merging if branch protection requires this check. The always() condition indicates intent to always provide a status, but the fork check defeats this for forks.

 

[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	$$29.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 467 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.84 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$4.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$18.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 266 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.165 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$57.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.17 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.862 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$6.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 97.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.377 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$24.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 426 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$47.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 576 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.691 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$7.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 726 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-70.794 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$36.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 620 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$4.70 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.073 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.70 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.679 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$4.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 43.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.848 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$8.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 116 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.542 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$4.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 67.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.146 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$5.50 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.60 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$5.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 102 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.005 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$4.23 \mathrm{ms} \pm 86.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.282 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.87 \mathrm{ms} \pm 43.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.155 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$3.49 \mathrm{ms} \pm 44.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.826 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 57.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.484 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 52.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.814 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 61.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.335 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 52.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.629 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 57.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.524 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 51.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.756 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 36.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.886 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$3.81 \mathrm{ms} \pm 45.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.00 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$4.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 58.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.03 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$4.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 35.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.737 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$4.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 77.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.00 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 61.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.72 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$4.15 \mathrm{ms} \pm 41.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.684 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$54.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.20 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}3.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$55.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.12 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}4.69 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$59.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 715 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$52.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 481 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.048 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$71.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 979 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.155 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$53.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 986 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.64 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$64.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 808 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.353 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$125 \mathrm{ms} \pm 2.32 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-1.181 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$57.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.37 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}4.77 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$350 \mathrm{ms} \pm 4.00 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}3.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$19.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 361 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.471 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$21.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 462 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$20.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 342 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.150 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$19.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 292 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$24.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 281 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.866 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$19.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 403 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 285 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.445 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$20.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 334 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$21.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 394 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$31.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 460 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.777 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$47.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 947 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$44.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 490 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.515 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$45.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 756 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.60 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$44.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 636 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.051 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$46.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 911 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.444 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$44.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 501 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.723 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$46.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 799 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.03 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$45.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 710 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.88 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$44.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 641 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.77 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 196 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.63 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$58.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 924 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.45 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$125 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.74 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}2.47 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$69.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.18 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.714 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$80.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.35 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}4.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$90.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.27 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-1.477 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$101 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.75 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-0.677 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$66.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.07 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}1.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$107 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.76 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}2.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$78.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.91 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.207 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$91.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 2.17 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}3.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$90.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.37 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-1.155 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$91.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.37 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-1.323 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$163 \mathrm{ms} \pm 2.48 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.608 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$171 \mathrm{ms} \pm 2.76 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}4.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$49.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.05 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.608 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$690 \mathrm{ms} \pm 5.95 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}2.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph