Skip to content

Execute primitive numeric operators with RowFn - #9345

Draft
connortsui20 wants to merge 1 commit into
ct/row-fn-frameworkfrom
ct/row-fn-numeric-operators
Draft

Execute primitive numeric operators with RowFn#9345
connortsui20 wants to merge 1 commit into
ct/row-fn-frameworkfrom
ct/row-fn-numeric-operators

Execute primitive numeric operators with RowFn

413796d
Select commit
Loading
Failed to load commit list.
CodSpeed HQ / CodSpeed Performance Analysis failed Aug 14, 2026 in 0s

Performance Regression: -11.49%

⚠️ Unknown Walltime execution environment detected

Using the Walltime instrument on standard Hosted Runners will lead to inconsistent data.

For the most accurate results, we recommend using CodSpeed Macro Runners: bare-metal machines fine-tuned for performance measurement consistency.

⚡ 1 improved benchmark
❌ 33 regressed benchmarks
✅ 1966 untouched benchmarks
🆕 25 new benchmarks
⏩ 89 skipped benchmarks1

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

Mode Benchmark BASE HEAD Efficiency
❌ Simulation linestrings 163.4 µs 194.7 µs -16.06%
❌ Simulation points 161.6 µs 191.7 µs -15.72%
❌ Simulation polygons 164.8 µs 195.3 µs -15.63%
❌ Simulation mul_u8_nonnull 162.1 µs 191.6 µs -15.41%
❌ Simulation two_vertex_lines 279.9 µs 326.6 µs -14.29%
❌ Simulation multipolygon_random_nulls 743.6 µs 866.1 µs -14.15%
❌ Simulation take[small_m/shuffled/primitive/nonnull/chunks=1024/indices=256] 2.1 ms 2.4 ms -13.03%
❌ Simulation take[small_m/shuffled/primitive/nonnull/chunks=16384/indices=1000] 9.3 ms 10.6 ms -12.9%
❌ Simulation nullable_two_vertex_lines 325.6 µs 373.6 µs -12.85%
❌ Simulation take_filter_list_small_random_mask_random_indices[256, 10] 203.6 µs 233.5 µs -12.82%
❌ Simulation take[small_m/shuffled/primitive/nonnull/chunks=1024/indices=1000] 5.5 ms 6.3 ms -12.81%
❌ Simulation take_filter_list_small_uncached_random_mask_random_indices[256, 10] 203.9 µs 233.8 µs -12.81%
❌ Simulation take_filter_list_slice_mask_random_indices[256, 50] 208 µs 238.4 µs -12.72%
❌ Simulation take_filter_list_random_mask_sequential_indices[768, 50] 205.5 µs 235.2 µs -12.61%
❌ Simulation list_i32_large 214.4 µs 245.3 µs -12.57%
❌ Simulation take_filter_list_small_uncached_random_mask_random_indices[768, 10] 211.6 µs 241.9 µs -12.55%
❌ Simulation take[small_m/shuffled/primitive/nonnull/chunks=16384/indices=256] 3.1 ms 3.5 ms -12.26%
❌ Simulation take_filter_list_slice_mask_random_indices[768, 50] 209.9 µs 239.2 µs -12.22%
❌ Simulation take_filter_list_small_random_mask_random_indices[768, 10] 213.1 µs 242.7 µs -12.21%
❌ Simulation take_filter_list_random_mask_sequential_indices[256, 50] 210.3 µs 239.3 µs -12.12%
... ... ... ... ... ...

ℹ️ Only the first 20 benchmarks are displayed. Go to the app to view all benchmarks.

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

Comparing ct/row-fn-numeric-operators (413796d) with ct/row-fn-framework (8d7edf3)

Open in CodSpeed

Footnotes

  1. 89 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

View more details on CodSpeed HQ