Separate RowFn decode and semantic infallibility - #9644
1 benchmark 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
❌ 1 regressed benchmark
✅ 2125 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 106 skipped benchmarks1
🗄️ 4 archived benchmarks run2
Warning
Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.
Performance Changes
| Mode | Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | WallTime | arrow_checked_add_u32_neon[16384] |
13.4 µs | 20.3 µs | -33.9% |
| ⚡ | WallTime | arrow_checked_add_u32_avx512[16384] |
21.4 µs | 17.7 µs | +21.14% |
| ⚡ | WallTime | arrow_checked_add_u32_avx2[16384] |
21.4 µs | 17.7 µs | +20.72% |
| ⚡ | WallTime | multiply_shapes_neon[(128, PerRowPerRow)] |
2.2 µs | 1.9 µs | +13.48% |
| ⚡ | WallTime | add_shapes_neon[(128, PerRowPerRow)] |
2.1 µs | 1.8 µs | +11.75% |
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-infallible (d49a7be) with develop (42a5d3b)
Footnotes
-
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. ↩
-
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. ↩