BE-197: Implement MIR inline pass for HashQL #8236

indietyp · 2026-01-02T22:17:31Z

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Implements a function inlining pass for HashQL's MIR (Mid-level Intermediate Representation). The pass reduces function call overhead and enables further optimizations by replacing call sites with the callee's body. It uses a two-phase approach: heuristic-based normal inlining followed by aggressive inlining for filter closures in graph read pipelines.

🔍 What does this change?

Adds libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/transform/inline/ module with:
- mod.rs: Main pass implementation with two-phase inlining (normal + aggressive)
- analysis.rs: Cost estimation and body analysis (loop detection, caller counting)
- heuristics.rs: Scoring algorithm with configurable bonuses (leaf, single-caller, unique-callsite, loop)
- find.rs: Callsite discovery for aggressive filter closure inlining
- rename.rs: Reference renaming for inlined code (locals, blocks, places)
- tests.rs: Comprehensive unit tests and snapshot tests
Processes SCCs in dependency order to ensure callees are optimized before inlining
Never inlines recursive calls (same SCC) to prevent infinite expansion
Respects per-caller budget (default: 120) to avoid code bloat
Aggressive phase runs until fixpoint or cutoff (default: 16 iterations

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

indietyp · 2026-01-02T22:18:08Z

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

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

codecov · 2026-01-02T22:21:59Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 97.16851% with 41 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 64.93%. Comparing base (2dcec85) to head (c391344).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ocal/hashql/mir/src/pass/analysis/callgraph/mod.rs	85.24%	9 Missing ⚠️
...@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/transform/inline/mod.rs	96.98%	6 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
...ocal/hashql/mir/src/pass/transform/inline/tests.rs	98.83%	2 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
...cal/hashql/core/src/graph/algorithms/tarjan/mod.rs	92.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
...pass/transform/administrative_reduction/visitor.rs	55.55%	2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...local/hashql/mir/src/pass/transform/inline/find.rs	80.95%	2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...l/hashql/mir/src/pass/transform/inline/analysis.rs	98.33%	2 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/core/src/graph/linked.rs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                                            Coverage Diff                                             @@
##           bm/be-267-hashql-do-not-reset-the-scratch-space-but-instead-use-scopes    #8236      +/-   ##
==========================================================================================================
+ Coverage                                                                   59.86%   64.93%   +5.06%     
==========================================================================================================
  Files                                                                        1067      735     -332     
  Lines                                                                      106458    62952   -43506     
  Branches                                                                     4479     3676     -803     
==========================================================================================================
- Hits                                                                        63730    40877   -22853     
+ Misses                                                                      41991    21596   -20395     
+ Partials                                                                      737      479     -258

Flag	Coverage Δ
blockprotocol.type-system	`?`
local.claude-hooks	`?`
local.harpc-client	`?`
rust.antsi	`?`
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-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-compiletest	`46.65% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-diagnostics	`?`
rust.hashql-mir	`89.67% <97.22%> (+2.03%)`	⬆️

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.

libs/@local/hashql/core/src/graph/algorithms/tarjan/mod.rs

indietyp · 2026-01-02T22:26:09Z

some of the compiletest tests (and tests.rs) will need pruning. The current amount of lines is unacceptable.

augmentcode · 2026-01-02T22:30:11Z

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Implements a MIR-level function inliner for HashQL, reducing call overhead and enabling downstream MIR optimizations.

Changes:

Added a new MIR transform pass Inline with two phases: heuristic, budgeted inlining across all bodies + aggressive fixpoint inlining for filter closures in graph-read pipelines
Introduced cost estimation + loop detection (CFG SCC analysis) and a configurable scoring heuristic (leaf/loop/single-caller/unique-callsite bonuses)
Extended call-graph analysis with CallSite and helper queries (apply callsites, filter discovery, leaf/single-caller queries)
Enhanced Tarjan SCC utilities with a public SccId newtype and a members()/members_in() API for SCC membership iteration
Added allocator-backed helpers to IdSlice and iterator support for &IdVec/&mut IdVec
Updated MIR builder/test infrastructure (new body sources incl. ctor/intrinsic) and added compiletest/UI coverage for the inliner (including excessive-depth diagnostics)

Technical Notes: Normal inlining processes SCCs in dependency order and skips recursive (same-SCC) inlines; aggressive filter inlining is bounded by aggressive_inline_cutoff and emits a warning when the cutoff is hit.

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

augmentcode

Review completed. 1 suggestions posted.

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

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/transform/inline/mod.rs

codspeed-hq · 2026-01-02T22:31:35Z

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #8236 will not alter performance

_{Comparing bm/be-197-hashql-implement-inlining (c391344) with bm/be-267-hashql-do-not-reset-the-scratch-space-but-instead-use-scopes (2dcec85)}

Summary

✅ 17 untouched
🗄️ 12 archived benchmarks run¹

12 benchmarks were run, but are now archived. If they were deleted in another branch, consider rebasing to remove them from the report. Instead if they were added back, click here to restore them. ↩

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/transform/inline/mod.rs

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/transform/inline/tests.rs

github-actions · 2026-01-03T15:24:25Z

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	$$25.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 176 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-15.317 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.322 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$11.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 58.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.999 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$41.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 305 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.323 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$13.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 74.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.395 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$22.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 147 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.088 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$25.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 133 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-40.578 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.64 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-81.846 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 75.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-60.532 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.023 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.87 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.60 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.622 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.620 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.328 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$3.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.938 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.173 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.27 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.739 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$3.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.274 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.19 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.70 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.9 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.71 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.2 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.81 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$2.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.64 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.43 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.32 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.24 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.76 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.17 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$38.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 140 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.922 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$75.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 347 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.970 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$43.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 188 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$45.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 167 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.310 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$53.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 286 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.326 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$41.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 194 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.415 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$418 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.06 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-0.657 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$94.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 382 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$84.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 410 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.347 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$285 \mathrm{ms} \pm 927 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.039 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 86.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.506 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$15.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.63 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$15.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 65.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.192 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$14.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 85.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.511 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$18.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 103 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.049 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$15.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 88.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.85 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$14.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 49.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.564 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$14.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$15.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 75.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.042 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$22.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 157 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.098 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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`	$$30.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 333 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.255 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1`	$$28.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 254 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.794 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1`	$$29.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 234 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.580 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1`	$$30.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 305 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.343 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2`	$$29.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 280 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.139 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1`	$$29.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 241 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.491 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1`	$$28.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 279 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.695 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1`	$$29.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 241 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.470 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1`	$$29.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 333 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.419 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: `bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba`	$$8.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 37.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.218 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$45.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 230 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.796 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$94.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 418 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.923 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$51.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 280 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.858 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$60.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 359 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.060 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$68.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 339 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.862 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$75.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 313 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.158 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$49.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 235 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.454 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$76.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 419 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.228 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$55.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 325 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.179 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$63.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 348 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.986 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$65.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 397 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.085 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$65.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 369 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.894 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$134 \mathrm{ms} \pm 569 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$132 \mathrm{ms} \pm 563 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.35 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$40.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 199 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-67.341 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$576 \mathrm{ms} \pm 920 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.671 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

indietyp added 30 commits December 24, 2025 16:52

feat: inline cost esimation

253c517

feat: expose scc membership

86740a3

feat: cost configuration

1d6b4e5

feat: first inliner (WIP)

e214d72

feat: choose call sites to inline

fc84775

chore: renames

39ccf57

feat: inlining

a343104

feat: make members 2x smaller

52c10f0

feat: inline add all blocks

5409185

feat: inliner WIP

7e2e236

feat: inline extract out data

94623ef

feat: create inliner

a62db2d

chore: fix lints

90efc79

chore: fix lints

54d9e14

chore: experiment

8601f3c

feat: checkpointing API

3a6fcb4

feat: account for aggressive inlining in normal phased

3c0c6c4

feat: finish (untested) inline

d6a5d80

chore: docs

2516cde

chore: cleanup

3b94fed

chore: checkpoint

5b372f2

chore: checkpoint

94a4dc2

feat: diagnostic

a5fe313

chore: Default trait impl for config

3957665

chore: checkpoint

f9ef158

feat: double inlining

2cbc072

fix: merge conflicts

4093d56

fix: imports

973f5f9

chore: checkpoint

edd5707

chore: tests

24ab65c

indietyp mentioned this pull request Jan 2, 2026

BE-267: Use bump scopes instead of full resets across transformation passes #8234

Open

3 tasks

vercel bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 2, 2026 22:21 View deployment

graphite-app bot reviewed Jan 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

libs/@local/hashql/core/src/graph/algorithms/tarjan/mod.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

vercel bot deployed to Preview – hash January 2, 2026 22:25 View deployment

chore: correctly gate the debug_assert via cfg and not conditional

f24fb13

vercel bot temporarily deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 2, 2026 22:26 Inactive

augmentcode bot reviewed Jan 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/transform/inline/mod.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

vercel bot deployed to Preview – hash January 2, 2026 22:34 View deployment

cursor bot reviewed Jan 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/transform/inline/mod.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

graphite-app bot requested review from a team January 2, 2026 22:45

vilkinsons changed the title ~~BE-197: Implement MIR inline pass for HashQ~~ BE-197: Implement MIR inline pass for HashQL Jan 2, 2026

feat: rework tests to be less... large

c09a998

vercel bot temporarily deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 2, 2026 23:07 Inactive

feat: verify that heap is indeed max

a11180b

vercel bot temporarily deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 2, 2026 23:12 Inactive

github-advanced-security bot found potential problems Jan 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/transform/inline/tests.rs Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/transform/inline/tests.rs Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed

feat: use GlobalTransformPass for Inline

c391344

vercel bot temporarily deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 3, 2026 14:14 Inactive

indietyp mentioned this pull request Jan 3, 2026

BE-270: HashQL: Optimize empty tuples to unit constants in MIR #8237

Open

3 tasks

This was referenced Jan 3, 2026

BE-268: HashQL: Rename PreInlining to PreInline for consistency #8238

Open

BE-269: HashQL: Move PreInline out into Canonicalization pass #8239

Open

BE-271: HashQL: Implement PostInline pass #8240

Open

BE-197: Implement MIR inline pass for HashQL #8236

Are you sure you want to change the base?

BE-197: Implement MIR inline pass for HashQL #8236

Uh oh!

Conversation

indietyp commented Jan 2, 2026

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

🔍 What does this change?

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

Uh oh!

indietyp commented Jan 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

indietyp commented Jan 2, 2026

Uh oh!

augmentcode bot commented Jan 2, 2026

Uh oh!

augmentcode bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq bot commented Jan 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #8236 will not alter performance

Summary

Footnotes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 3, 2026

Benchmark results

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

policy_resolution_medium

policy_resolution_none

policy_resolution_small

read_scaling_complete

read_scaling_linkless

representative_read_entity

representative_read_entity_type

representative_read_multiple_entities

scenarios

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

indietyp commented Jan 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jan 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codspeed-hq bot commented Jan 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading