Skip to content

BE-434: HashQL: Refactor entity storage path resolution with centralized schema mapping#8496

Merged
indietyp merged 4 commits intomainfrom
bm/be-434-hashql-entity-path-resolution-and-storage-mapping
Mar 10, 2026
Merged

BE-434: HashQL: Refactor entity storage path resolution with centralized schema mapping#8496
indietyp merged 4 commits intomainfrom
bm/be-434-hashql-entity-path-resolution-and-storage-mapping

Conversation

@indietyp
Copy link
Member

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

This PR refactors the entity field path resolution system in the HashQL MIR execution layer. It consolidates the scattered path lookup logic into a centralized storage module with a strongly-typed EntityPath enum, improving maintainability and type safety for backend placement decisions.

🔍 What does this change?

  • Adds base_url and version symbols to the core symbol definitions
  • Implements AsRef<Self> for Projection to improve ergonomics
  • Creates a new storage module with EntityPath enum that exhaustively represents all entity field paths
  • Replaces the trie-based path lookup system with direct pattern matching on projection sequences
  • Introduces VertexType enum to classify vertex types in GraphReadFilter bodies
  • Consolidates entity projection access logic into a single entity_projection_access function
  • Updates both Postgres and Embedding statement placement to use the new centralized path resolution
  • Removes the old lookup module and its trie-based implementation
  • Adds comprehensive test coverage for the new path resolution system

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?

  • Existing unit tests for entity projection path lookup have been updated and expanded
  • New tests cover the EntityPath::resolve method and index tracking functionality
  • Tests verify JSONB path handling and composite path early exit behavior

❓ How to test this?

  1. Checkout the branch
  2. Run the existing test suite to ensure no regressions
  3. Verify that entity field access patterns continue to work correctly in both Postgres and Embedding backends

feat: checkpoint (II)

feat: checkpoint (III)

feat: snapshot vec

feat: add dedicated filter

feat: checkpoint

feat: filter implementation

feat: filter implementation (mostly) done

chore: environment capture note

chore: always postgres bigint

feat: target clone

feat: simplify lookup

feat: move storage up

feat: eval entity path

chore: checkpoint

chore: checkpoint

chore: find entrypoint

feat: eval context

feat: eval cleanup

chore: cleanup

feat: track index

feat: wire up filter

feat: add error reporting

chore: checkpoint
@cursor
Copy link

cursor bot commented Feb 28, 2026

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Refactors core statement-placement logic for Postgres/Embedding by changing how entity projection paths are resolved and classified, which can alter backend dispatch decisions. Added tests reduce risk, but incorrect path mapping would affect query execution behavior.

Overview
Centralizes entity field storage mapping used by execution statement placement: replaces the trie-based statement_placement::lookup with a new execution::storage module exposing strongly-typed EntityPath resolution and Access classification, and updates Postgres/Embedding placement to query this shared resolver.

Adds VertexType classification for GraphReadFilter vertex locals, extends resolver test coverage (including consumed-projection indexing and invalid/non-FieldByName projections), and adds new core symbols base_url and version.

Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 885a006. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.

@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Feb 28, 2026

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

Project Deployment Actions Updated (UTC)
hash Ready Ready Preview, Comment Mar 8, 2026 5:14pm
petrinaut Ready Ready Preview Mar 8, 2026 5:14pm
2 Skipped Deployments
Project Deployment Actions Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign Ignored Ignored Preview Mar 8, 2026 5:14pm
hashdotdesign-tokens Ignored Ignored Preview Mar 8, 2026 5:14pm

@github-actions github-actions bot added area/libs Relates to first-party libraries/crates/packages (area) type/eng > backend Owned by the @backend team labels Feb 28, 2026
@augmentcode
Copy link

augmentcode bot commented Feb 28, 2026

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Refactors HashQL MIR execution placement by centralizing entity field storage path resolution.

Changes:

  • Adds new core symbols base_url and version
  • Adds an AsRef impl for Projection to improve call-site ergonomics
  • Introduces pass::execution::storage with a strongly-typed EntityPath enum and Access mapping
  • Replaces the prior trie-based lookup with direct pattern matching via EntityPath::resolve
  • Adds VertexType to classify GraphReadFilter vertex locals
  • Updates Postgres and Embedding statement placement to use the centralized resolution helper
  • Removes the old statement_placement::lookup module and migrates/expands unit tests under storage

Technical Notes: EntityPath::resolve returns both the resolved path and the number of projections consumed, and treats JSONB-backed paths as a storage boundary that permits arbitrary subpaths.

🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎

Copy link

@augmentcode augmentcode bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Review completed. 3 suggestions posted.

Fix All in Augment

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

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 28, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 82.44898% with 43 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 62.68%. Comparing base (bb10349) to head (885a006).
⚠️ Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...al/hashql/mir/src/pass/execution/storage/entity.rs 61.33% 28 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...ibs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/execution/vertex.rs 68.18% 6 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/body/place.rs 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
...ass/execution/statement_placement/embedding/mod.rs 66.66% 1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...pass/execution/statement_placement/postgres/mod.rs 60.00% 1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8496      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   62.65%   62.68%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files        1312     1312              
  Lines      133689   133798     +109     
  Branches     5510     5511       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits        83757    83870     +113     
+ Misses      49018    49013       -5     
- Partials      914      915       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts 1.40% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api 0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk 7.73% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils 0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-api 2.64% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-ast 87.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest 29.69% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core 82.29% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval 69.13% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir 89.06% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir 92.64% <82.44%> (+0.05%) ⬆️
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.

@codspeed-hq
Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Feb 28, 2026

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 80 untouched benchmarks


Comparing bm/be-434-hashql-entity-path-resolution-and-storage-mapping (885a006) with main (15ebcfe)1

Open in CodSpeed

Footnotes

  1. No successful run was found on main (9f3aa5b) during the generation of this report, so 15ebcfe was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report.

Copy link

@cursor cursor bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 2 potential issues.

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

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Mar 8, 2026

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 $$28.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 215 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.910 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001 $$13.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 101 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314 $$44.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 353 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.314 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$15.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 124 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.654 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526 $$26.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 238 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078 $$30.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 267 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.19 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$4.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.84 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033 $$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 92.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102 $$4.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.641 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.20 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.540 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51 $$3.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.495 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269 $$5.50 \mathrm{ms} \pm 35.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.031 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.80 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.683 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107 $$4.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133 $$4.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.46 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.74 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.37 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63 $$4.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.326 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2 $$2.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.195 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.87 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.38 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1 $$2.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.537 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8 $$3.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.24 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.351 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3 $$3.36 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.820 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52 $$3.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.896 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.422 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25 $$3.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.29 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94 $$3.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.68 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26 $$3.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.369 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66 $$3.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.366 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.513 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29 $$3.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.649 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth 1 entities $$44.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 224 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.81 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 10 entities $$81.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 385 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.006 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 25 entities $$47.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 223 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.430 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 5 entities $$51.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 400 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 50 entities $$60.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 296 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.563 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 1 entities $$46.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 251 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.54 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 10 entities $$425 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.09 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-0.945 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 25 entities $$101 \mathrm{ms} \pm 471 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.114 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 5 entities $$89.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 360 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.118 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 50 entities $$292 \mathrm{ms} \pm 780 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.478 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 1 entities $$17.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 109 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 10 entities $$17.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 83.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 25 entities $$16.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 108 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.222 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 5 entities $$16.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 87.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.571 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 50 entities $$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 137 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.889 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id 1 entities $$16.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 93.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10 entities $$16.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.533 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 100 entities $$16.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.597 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 1000 entities $$17.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 149 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.222 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10000 entities $$25.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 147 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.08 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ 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 $$33.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 281 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.45 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1 $$33.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 291 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.39 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1 $$33.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 268 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1 $$32.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 347 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.978 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2 $$33.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 312 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.84 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1 $$32.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 341 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.502 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1 $$32.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 339 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.229 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1 $$33.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 328 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.10 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1 $$32.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 325 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.617 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba $$9.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 44.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.999 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$94.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 573 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$148 \mathrm{ms} \pm 602 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.665 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$100 \mathrm{ms} \pm 499 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.714 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$110 \mathrm{ms} \pm 487 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$120 \mathrm{ms} \pm 618 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$126 \mathrm{ms} \pm 523 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.410 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$92.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 378 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.60 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 526 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.167 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$98.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 452 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$107 \mathrm{ms} \pm 496 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.83 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$110 \mathrm{ms} \pm 491 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$110 \mathrm{ms} \pm 505 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.23 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
full_test query-limited $$131 \mathrm{ms} \pm 476 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.442 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
full_test query-unlimited $$135 \mathrm{ms} \pm 537 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.879 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-limited $$106 \mathrm{ms} \pm 508 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.253 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-unlimited $$586 \mathrm{ms} \pm 2.41 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}1.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

@indietyp indietyp added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 10, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit d52acf5 Mar 10, 2026
93 checks passed
@indietyp indietyp deleted the bm/be-434-hashql-entity-path-resolution-and-storage-mapping branch March 10, 2026 20:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area/libs Relates to first-party libraries/crates/packages (area) type/eng > backend Owned by the @backend team

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants