Fix empty array validity predicates - #9417
3 benchmarks regressed
⚠️ 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.
⚠️ Different runtime environments detected
Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.
⚡ 4 improved benchmarks
❌ 3 regressed benchmarks
✅ 1993 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 89 skipped benchmarks1
Warning
Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.
Performance Changes
| Mode | Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | Simulation | cold_misaligned[(64, 256)] |
4.4 ms | 5.3 ms | -16.82% |
| ❌ | Simulation | compact_sliced[(4096, 90)] |
1.6 µs | 1.9 µs | -13.97% |
| ❌ | Simulation | compact_sliced[(16384, 90)] |
1.8 µs | 2 µs | -13.01% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | take[small_m/shuffled/primitive/nonnull/chunks=1024/indices=1000] |
6.1 ms | 5.3 ms | +14.74% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | take[small_m/shuffled/primitive/nonnull/chunks=1024/indices=256] |
2.3 ms | 2 ms | +13.49% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | take[small_m/shuffled/primitive/nonnull/chunks=16384/indices=1000] |
10.2 ms | 9 ms | +12.72% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | take[small_m/shuffled/primitive/nonnull/chunks=16384/indices=256] |
3.3 ms | 3 ms | +10.01% |
Tip
Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.
Comparing ct/mask-all-valid (47b4ab4) with develop (b363fb7)
Footnotes
-
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. ↩