Skip to content

feat(bench): add Arrow IPC benchmark baselines - #9624

Merged
lwwmanning merged 9 commits into
developfrom
wm/arrow-benchmarks
Aug 26, 2026
Merged

feat(bench): add Arrow IPC benchmark baselines#9624
lwwmanning merged 9 commits into
developfrom
wm/arrow-benchmarks

docs(bench): explain Arrow IPC baselines

45c9d16
Select commit
Loading
Failed to load commit list.
CodSpeed HQ / CodSpeed Performance Analysis succeeded Aug 26, 2026 in 0s

Performance Gate Passed

⚠️ 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.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

⚡ 3 improved benchmarks
✅ 2109 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 106 skipped benchmarks1
🗄️ 4 archived benchmarks run2

Performance Changes

Mode Benchmark BASE HEAD Efficiency
WallTime arrow_checked_add_u32_avx512[16384] 21.3 µs 17.6 µs +21.08%
Simulation take[duplicates/repeated/primitive/nonnull/chunks=16/indices=1000] 240.4 µs 206.9 µs +16.2%
WallTime words_gather_scalar_avx2[65536] 9.4 µs 8.3 µs +14.4%

Tip

Curious why performance improved? Comment @codspeedbot explain why performance improved on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.


Comparing wm/arrow-benchmarks (45c9d16) with develop (33c52ab)3

Open in CodSpeed

Footnotes

  1. 106 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.

  2. 4 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.

  3. No successful run was found on develop (8610ba8) during the generation of this report, so 33c52ab was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report.