BE-302: HashQL: Statement cost analysis for execution target placement #8339

indietyp · 2026-01-29T18:53:39Z

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Implement statement coloring (cost analysis) for the HashQL MIR execution analysis module. This enables the compiler to determine which statements can be executed on different backends (Postgres, Embedding DB, Interpreter) by assigning costs to each statement.

🔗 Related links

Linear: BE-302

🚫 Blocked by

N/A

🔍 What does this change?

New execution analysis module (pass/analysis/execution/):

cost.rs: Cost type with overflow-safe arithmetic, StatementCostVec and TraversalCostVec for tracking costs per statement/traversal
target.rs: ExecutionTarget trait and implementations for Postgres, Interpreter, Embedding
statement_placement/: Framework for computing which statements can run on each backend
- common.rs: Shared cost visitor logic
- postgres/: Postgres backend - supports binary/unary ops, aggregates (tuple/struct), input, entity projections (JSONB/columns)
- embedding/: Embedding DB backend - only supports entity.encodings.vectors projections
- interpret/: Interpreter backend - universal fallback, supports all statements
- lookup/: Entity projection path lookup trie mapping field paths to Access (Postgres column, JSONB, Embedding)

Pretty printer enhancements:

Added TextFormatAnnotations trait for annotating MIR output with cost information
Refactored to use line buffering for proper annotation alignment
Cost annotations appear as // cost: N comments on statements

Symbol table additions:

Added sym::lexical::foo, bar, unknown for testing
Changed PathNode.name from Symbol<'static> to &'static Symbol<'static> to prevent symbol duplication across crates

Type visitor improvements:

Extended TypeVisitor with additional traversal methods

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?

Unit tests in cost.rs (Cost arithmetic, StatementCostVec indexing)
Snapshot tests for statement placement across all three backends (16 new snapshots)
Unit tests for entity projection lookup in lookup/tests.rs
Unit tests for ExecutionTarget in target.rs

❓ How to test this?

cargo nextest run --package hashql-mir
cargo insta test --package hashql-mir

vercel · 2026-01-29T18:53:47Z

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

2 Skipped Deployments

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign	Ignored	Preview	Jan 30, 2026 11:24pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	Jan 30, 2026 11:24pm

cursor · 2026-01-29T18:53:47Z

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Touches core MIR analysis and formatting paths and adds new dataflow-based placement logic, which could affect execution planning and diagnostics despite being largely additive and test-covered.

Overview
Adds MIR execution cost/placement analysis to decide which statements can run on Postgres, Embedding, or the Interpreter, producing per-statement and per-traversal cost maps (including a cost!() macro and TargetId/ExecutionTarget types). Placement includes a must-style supportedness dataflow, entity-field projection lookup via a trie to route paths to Postgres vs Embedding, and extensive new unit/snapshot tests.

Upgrades MIR builder/docs and pretty-printing to support named-field projections and [Opaque sym::path::…; T] types, plus optional formatting annotations so statement costs can be emitted inline as trailing // cost: N comments (refactoring TextFormat into TextFormatOptions + line-buffered output, and updating call sites).

Also includes small core utilities/cleanup (e.g., DenseBitSet::set, fallible type visiting API, expanded symbol/path tables, const conversions, and dependency/tuning tweaks).

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 0af7773. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

codecov · 2026-01-29T18:56:29Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 42.51012% with 142 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 60.49%. Comparing base (dbbeb22) to head (0af7773).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
libs/@local/hashql/core/src/type/visit.rs	43.05%	123 Missing ⚠️
...ibs/@local/hashql/core/src/type/inference/visit.rs	41.66%	14 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/core/src/id/bit_vec/mod.rs	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                                     Coverage Diff                                      @@
##           bm/be-317-hashql-projectionextraction-for-entity-access    #8339       +/-   ##
============================================================================================
- Coverage                                                    84.23%   60.49%   -23.74%     
============================================================================================
  Files                                                          114      292      +178     
  Lines                                                        16777    48113    +31336     
  Branches                                                       500      953      +453     
============================================================================================
+ Hits                                                         14132    29106    +14974     
- Misses                                                        2481    18678    +16197     
- Partials                                                       164      329      +165

Flag	Coverage Δ
rust.antsi	`0.00% <ø> (?)`
rust.harpc-tower	`66.80% <ø> (?)`
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	`25.61% <ø> (?)`
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	`47.95% <ø> (?)`
rust.hashql-ast	`?`
rust.hashql-compiletest	`46.65% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-core	`81.33% <42.51%> (?)`
rust.hashql-diagnostics	`72.43% <ø> (?)`
rust.hashql-eval	`?`
rust.hashql-hir	`89.10% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	`?`

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.

codspeed-hq · 2026-01-29T18:59:41Z

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 21 untouched benchmarks
🗄️ 12 archived benchmarks run¹

_{Comparing bm/be-302-hashql-statement-coloring-based-on-capabilities (0af7773) with bm/be-317-hashql-projectionextraction-for-entity-access (dbbeb22)}

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. ↩

augmentcode · 2026-01-29T19:00:30Z

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Adds a new HashQL MIR execution analysis module to compute per-statement “costs” for backend placement (Postgres, Embedding DB, Interpreter), enabling later execution-target planning.

Key changes:

Introduced pass/analysis/execution/ with Cost, StatementCostVec, and TraversalCostVec for tracking statement/traversal costs.
Added an ExecutionTarget abstraction with concrete targets: Postgres, Embedding, and Interpreter.
Implemented statement placement analyses per target (supportedness dataflow + cost assignment) and an entity projection lookup trie mapping field paths to storage backends.
Extended traversal extraction with Traversals::enabled to identify traversal locals for backend fetch costing.
Enhanced MIR pretty-printing with a new TextFormatAnnotations hook and line-buffered formatting to align annotations (e.g., // cost: N).
Refactored type visitor APIs to return a Try-based result, enabling early-exit visitors (e.g., closure detection).
Added symbols (including sym::path::Entity) and updated stdlib entity opaque naming to use shared symbols.

Tests: Adds unit tests for cost arithmetic/indexing, lookup behavior, target IDs/names, and snapshot-based placement tests for all targets.

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

augmentcode

Review completed. 4 suggestions posted.

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

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/analysis/execution/cost.rs

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/analysis/execution/statement_placement/lookup/mod.rs

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/analysis/execution/statement_placement/embedding/mod.rs

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/analysis/execution/statement_placement/tests.rs

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.}

libs/@local/hashql/core/src/type/visit.rs

github-actions · 2026-01-30T11:46:22Z

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	$$26.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 117 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.585 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.24 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.813 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 117 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.026 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$42.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 330 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.042 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 101 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.27 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$24.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 146 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.958 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$43.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 281 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.779 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$20.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-12.882 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$31.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 217 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.832 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.81 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.586 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.14 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.807 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$4.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.605 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.36 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.098 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$3.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.531 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$3.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.599 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.20 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.710 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$3.82 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.265 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.01 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.44 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.971 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.50 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.71 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$2.78 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.865 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.293 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.23 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.901 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.09 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.470 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.245 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$2.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.291 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.60 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.707 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.218 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$38.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 155 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.728 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$75.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 343 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.739 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$43.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 192 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.004 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$45.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 248 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.815 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$52.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 246 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.634 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$40.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 172 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.330 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$419 \mathrm{ms} \pm 952 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.984 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$93.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 434 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.832 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$83.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 354 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.599 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$310 \mathrm{ms} \pm 786 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.9 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$14.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 54.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.700 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$14.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.057 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.109 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$14.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 59.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.096 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$16.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 113 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.420 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$14.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 74.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.709 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$14.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 62.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.370 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$14.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 50.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.821 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 72.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.842 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$21.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 143 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.647 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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`	$$31.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 306 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1`	$$30.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 327 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1`	$$30.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 305 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.80 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1`	$$31.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 306 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2`	$$31.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 286 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1`	$$29.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 271 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.491 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1`	$$30.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 341 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.675 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1`	$$30.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 344 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.93 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1`	$$30.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 289 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: `bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba`	$$8.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$46.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 275 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.167 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$92.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 396 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.175 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$52.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 249 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.05 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$60.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 325 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.833 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$68.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 359 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.115 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$74.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 376 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.112 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$49.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 202 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.089 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$76.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 311 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.426 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$56.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 296 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.209 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$64.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 246 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.139 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$67.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 327 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.509 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$67.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 359 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.914 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$135 \mathrm{ms} \pm 543 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.34 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$134 \mathrm{ms} \pm 468 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.99 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$84.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 2.88 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-18.172 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$570 \mathrm{ms} \pm 724 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.716 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

indietyp added 26 commits January 22, 2026 12:38

chore: add missing docs

95fcdca

chore: checkpoint

74aa1ab

chore: outline

07e77d3

feat: figure out what to do

e29ca35

feat: checkpoint

6db4591

feat: checkpoint

be8a46f

chore: checkpoint

8cdce67

feat: checkpoint

d0cc2c1

feat: checkpoint

e71ea37

feat: checkpoint

d1bdc34

chore: write down the thoughts

9dbe00c

chore: checkpoint

ef51812

feat: shuffle things around

2455927

feat: checkpoint

ad2f30f

feat: checkpoint

d70c26b

feat: checkpoint

6a93607

chore: checkpoint

8890c66

feat: checkpoint

e73ce72

feat: checkpoint

4b682df

feat: make everything pub

0788165

chore: docs

22766f8

feat: move to line buffer for text

43872eb

feat: pretty

6d22273

chore: comments

27c2131

feat: checkpoint

b1e9265

feat: tests

2f3d9a8

graphite-app bot assigned indietyp Jan 29, 2026

github-actions bot added the area/infra Relates to version control, CI, CD or IaC (area) label Jan 29, 2026

indietyp mentioned this pull request Jan 29, 2026

BE-317: HashQL: Implement TraversalExtraction pass #8331

Open

3 tasks

vercel bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 29, 2026 18:58 View deployment

augmentcode bot reviewed Jan 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

vercel bot deployed to Preview – hash January 29, 2026 19:06 View deployment

graphite-app bot requested review from a team January 29, 2026 19:18

fix: add miri test

3aa8d75

vercel bot temporarily deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 29, 2026 20:27 Inactive

cursor bot reviewed Jan 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

libs/@local/hashql/core/src/type/visit.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

indietyp added 2 commits January 29, 2026 21:36

fix: test

442a3f5

fix: recursive guard

0af7773

vercel bot temporarily deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 29, 2026 20:46 Inactive

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-317-hashql-projectionextraction-for-entity-access branch from 6ffafd7 to b4bf91a Compare January 29, 2026 20:48

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-302-hashql-statement-coloring-based-on-capabilities branch from 738c295 to d838213 Compare January 29, 2026 20:48

vercel bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 29, 2026 20:52 View deployment

vercel bot deployed to Preview – hash January 29, 2026 21:01 View deployment

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-317-hashql-projectionextraction-for-entity-access branch from b4bf91a to 8f967ee Compare January 30, 2026 10:36

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-302-hashql-statement-coloring-based-on-capabilities branch from d838213 to e81fd90 Compare January 30, 2026 10:36

vercel bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 30, 2026 10:40 View deployment

vercel bot deployed to Preview – hash January 30, 2026 10:46 View deployment

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-317-hashql-projectionextraction-for-entity-access branch from 8f967ee to dbbeb22 Compare January 30, 2026 23:24

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-302-hashql-statement-coloring-based-on-capabilities branch from e81fd90 to 0af7773 Compare January 30, 2026 23:24

indietyp mentioned this pull request Jan 30, 2026

BE-360: HashQL: Rework compiletest UI #8340

Open

3 tasks

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview – hash January 30, 2026 23:27 Failure

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview – petrinaut January 30, 2026 23:27 Failure

BE-302: HashQL: Statement cost analysis for execution target placement #8339

Are you sure you want to change the base?

BE-302: HashQL: Statement cost analysis for execution target placement #8339

Uh oh!

Conversation

indietyp commented Jan 29, 2026

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

🔗 Related links

🚫 Blocked by

🔍 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?

🛡 What tests cover this?

❓ How to test this?

Uh oh!

vercel bot commented Jan 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cursor bot commented Jan 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

PR Summary

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq bot commented Jan 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Merging this PR will not alter performance

Footnotes

Uh oh!

augmentcode bot commented Jan 29, 2026

Uh oh!

augmentcode bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cursor bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 30, 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

vercel bot commented Jan 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

cursor bot commented Jan 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jan 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codspeed-hq bot commented Jan 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading