Fix lint in new benchmarks - #9882
Performance Regression: -2.6%
⚠️ 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.
⚡ 3 improved benchmarks
❌ 3 regressed benchmarks
✅ 2192 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 218 skipped benchmarks1
Warning
Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.
Performance Changes
| Mode | Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | Simulation | random_i8[0.5] |
70.2 µs | 93.6 µs | -24.96% |
| ❌ | Simulation | decompress[u64, (4000, 1024)] |
70.5 µs | 85.7 µs | -17.7% |
| ❌ | WallTime | mul_u32_nonnull_avx512 |
5.6 µs | 6.3 µs | -10.77% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | random_i16[0.8] |
95.4 µs | 77.1 µs | +23.72% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | allocate_drop_arrow[0] |
456.9 ns | 402.7 ns | +13.45% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | allocate_drop_bytes[0] |
575.7 ns | 521.6 ns | +10.39% |
Tip
Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.
Comparing adamg/fix-bench-lint-followup (0d4b5df) with develop (6465462)2
Footnotes
-
218 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. ↩
-
No successful run was found on
develop(3f0bc34) during the generation of this report, so 6465462 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩