Harden Docker mise install against transient upstream failures

[claude]

Requested by Tim Diekmann, Bilal Mahmoud · Slack thread

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Before: the service Dockerfiles run mise install <tools> and yarn install in a single layer after copying the turbo-pruned dependency manifests, so any JS dependency change invalidates the tool layer and every such build re-downloads node/java/protoc/… from upstream sources. The pinned mise (2026.4.22) performs zero HTTP retries by default (http_retries = 0 at that version), so a single transient 504 from an upstream tool source fails the whole image build. This failed two consecutive staging deploys in the "Build and push integration-worker (amd64)" job: run 29033102373 and run 29033986038. The images also installed biome — unpinned (resolving "latest" every build) and, since the repo-wide migration to oxfmt, never actually invoked by anything.

After: the tool-install layer is built before the dependency-manifest COPYs, so it stays cached in the GHCR buildx registry cache across JS dependency churn and most builds never contact upstream tool sources at all. When a build does hit upstream, mise ≥ 2026.4.24 retries transient failures — 5xx/408/429, network errors, mid-stream drops — with jittered backoff by default (jdx/mise#9414). A committed mise.lock (with lockfile = true, groundwork in this PR — see status below) removes the remaining resolution/API traffic so the whole failure class goes away. biome is removed everywhere — both Dockerfiles that installed it, both Vercel install scripts, and no mise pin — so it is no longer resolved or downloaded at all.

Which mitigation answers what:

• Layer reorder → most builds never hit upstream at all (the durable fix).
• mise bump 2026.4.22 → 2026.7.0 (Docker only) → transient errors are retried with backoff instead of failing on the first 504. This replaces a shell for-loop retry wrapper: mise's own retry landed in v2026.4.24, so bumping the pin is the non-bandaid version of the same protection.
• mise.lock + strict locked installs → installs use pre-resolved URLs/checksums and skip GitHub/aqua API calls entirely (jdx/mise#8679, fixing #8677, in v2026.3.11; attestation-probe caching in v2026.5.6 via #9741).
• biome removal → one fewer upstream artifact to download in the first place.
• Token: verified rather than changed — every mise install RUN in all five Dockerfiles already receives GITHUB_TOKEN via --mount=type=secret,id=GITHUB_TOKEN,env=GITHUB_TOKEN, passed by .github/actions/docker-build-push from github.token. A token only raises API rate limits; it would not have helped with a 504.

🔗 Related links

• Failed staging deploys: 29033102373, 29033986038 — job "Build and push integration-worker (amd64)"
• jdx/mise#9414 — default HTTP retries for transient failures (v2026.4.24)
• jdx/mise#8679 — locked installs skip GitHub API for aqua tools (v2026.3.11, fixes #8677)
• mise.lock docs — lockfile + strict locked mode

🚫 Blocked by

• mise.lock generation: the sandbox this PR was authored in cannot reach GitHub release/API endpoints for third-party repos, so the lockfile could not be generated here. One command on an unrestricted machine produces it: mise lock -p linux-x64,linux-arm64,macos-x64,macos-arm64 (then commit .config/mise/mise.lock). Until it lands, MISE_LOCKED=1 must NOT be added to the Dockerfiles (strict mode fails without lock URLs); everything else in this PR stands alone.

🔍 What does this change?

• apps/{hash-api,hash-ai-worker-ts,hash-frontend,hash-graph,hash-integration-worker}/docker/Dockerfile: builder stage installs system packages + mise tools before the COPY --from=base /app/out/json … manifest copies; yarn install --immutable split into its own RUN after them. Tool versions come from /etc/mise/config.toml (copied in the first stage), so the install needs nothing from the pruned context. MISE_VERSION bumped 2026.4.22 → 2026.7.0.
• biome removed from every place that installed it — apps/hash-integration-worker/docker/Dockerfile, apps/hash-ai-worker-ts/docker/Dockerfile, apps/hash-frontend/vercel-install.sh, apps/petrinaut-website/vercel-install.sh — with no replacement. Evidence: no script in any package.json in the repo invokes biome, there is no biome.json, and no package depends on @biomejs/* — the oxfmt migration is complete. The only formatter invoked from the turbo build → codegen graph at all is hash-api's codegen afterOneFileWrite: oxfmt hook, and hash-api is not in the dependency closure of the integration-worker, ai-worker-ts, frontend, or petrinaut-website builds (the api/frontend images already install oxfmt for their own use). The only remaining biome strings in the repo are two inert biome-ignore suppression comments in apps/hash-frontend/src/pages/supply-chain/.
• .config/mise/config.toml:
  • lockfile = true — groundwork so the committed mise.lock stays maintained by mise install/mise use. Harmless until the lockfile exists (mise does not create one automatically; mise lock does).
  • min_version 2026.4.22 → 2026.6.13 — see below.
• README.md: the two dev-facing mise version mentions updated to ≥ 2026.6.13.
• No layer semantics other than ordering changed; cache mounts, secret mounts unaffected.

Why min_version = 2026.6.13 (and not the Docker pin 2026.7.0)

The Docker MISE_VERSION and the dev-facing min_version are separate knobs; the images can ride newer without churning every developer. The floor is the max of the hard requirements for working with the committed lockfile, all verified against the mise changelog:

• lockfile-content stability for this repo's entries — anything older rewrites/drops fields on plain mise install and churns the committed lock: node source-lock outcomes (#10547, v2026.6.13), java lock identity (#9989, v2026.6.4), rust-toolchain.toml idiomatic-file locking (#10309/#10319, v2026.6.3)
• mise lock fails loudly when active tools cannot resolve (#10586, v2026.6.13) — regenerating the lock on older versions can silently produce incomplete locks
• everything earlier comes along for free: locked-mode support for npm/cargo/pipx backends (#7985, v2026.2.3), aqua locked-mode API skip (#8679, v2026.3.11), default HTTP retries (#9414, v2026.4.24 — nice-to-have for devs, not a hard floor, but subsumed by the 2026.6.13 floor anyway)

Lockfile mechanics (verified against mise 2026.7.0 source/docs)

• For .config/mise/config.toml, the lockfile lives at .config/mise/mise.lock (lockfile_path_for_config uses the config's parent dir), so the existing COPY .config/mise /etc/mise carries it into the images with no Dockerfile change; system-config lockfiles are supported (mise lock -g covers "~/.config/mise/mise.lock and system config"). config.ci.toml tools get a separate mise.ci.lock scoped to CI.
• mise lock -p linux-x64,linux-arm64,macos-x64,macos-arm64 pre-generates entries for both Docker arches and both dev macOS arches. Under strict locked mode, install fails for a platform with no lockfile URL (no silent fallback); without strict mode, an unlocked platform falls back to normal resolution.
• npm:*/cargo:*/pipx:* tools are version-only in the lockfile (no pre-resolved URLs) and are explicitly exempt from the strict-mode URL check (supports_lockfile_url() == false); their downloads go to the npm registry/crates.io with those tools' own retry behaviour. The rust toolchain is likewise exempt (rustup manages it).
• Once mise.lock is committed, the follow-through is MISE_LOCKED=1 (or locked = true) for the Docker install layers so image builds hard-require pre-resolved URLs.

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

This PR:

• does not modify any publishable blocks or libraries, or modifications do not need publishing

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

The changes in this PR:

• are internal and do not require a docs change (the README version references are updated in this PR)

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

The changes in this PR:

• do not affect the execution graph

⚠️ Known issues

• mise.lock is not yet committed (see Blocked by) — strict locked installs are therefore not yet enabled in the Dockerfiles.
• The first build after this merges is a full cold build (the mise config change invalidates every stage once).

🐾 Next steps

• Generate and commit .config/mise/mise.lock (all four platforms), then add MISE_LOCKED=1 to the Docker tool-install layers.
• Optionally sweep the two leftover biome-ignore comments in apps/hash-frontend/src/pages/supply-chain/ (inert; cosmetic only).

🛡 What tests cover this?

• No unit tests apply; the per-service Docker build validation jobs on this PR exercise all five modified Dockerfiles end-to-end (the integration-worker and ai-worker-ts builds passing proves biome was unused in their build paths).

❓ How to test this?

1. Confirm the Docker build jobs on this PR pass for every service — builds passing without biome proves it was vestigial.
2. Confirm the Vercel preview deployments (hash-frontend, petrinaut-website) build, proving the install scripts don't need biome either.
3. Re-run a build after a JS-dependency-only change lands and confirm the mise install layer is a cache hit (no upstream downloads in the log).

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jul 10, 2026 7:35am
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jul 10, 2026 7:35am
petrinaut	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jul 10, 2026 7:35am

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 59.74%. Comparing base (232f15c) to head (e5a2a2c).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #9000   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   59.74%   59.74%           
=======================================
  Files        1370     1370           
  Lines      135170   135170           
  Branches     6067     6067           
=======================================
+ Hits        80760    80761    +1     
+ Misses      53477    53476    -1     
  Partials      933      933           

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.39% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	6.39% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system	40.84% <ø> (ø)
local.claude-hooks	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client	51.49% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-backend-utils	1.90% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	10.02% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.18% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.89% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.26% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️
rust.harpc-tower	67.03% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-wire-protocol	92.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-codec	72.76% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-api	7.41% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.59% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-embeddings	91.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	29.47% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	38.19% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	47.95% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-validation	84.71% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-ast	89.63% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	28.39% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	78.95% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.51% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	79.47% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.09% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	88.05% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.04% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 15.38%

⚠️ 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

❌ 2 regressed benchmarks
✅ 96 untouched benchmarks

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	bit_matrix/dense/iter_row[64]	140.8 ns	170 ns	-17.16%
❌	bit_matrix/dense/iter_row[200]	185.8 ns	215 ns	-13.57%

Tip

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

---

_{Comparing claude/docker-mise-install-hardening (e5a2a2c) with main (e765bd6)}

[github-actions]

Benchmark results

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2002	$$26.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 178 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.260 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.966 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$12.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 84.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.607 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$44.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 414 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.422 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$15.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.952 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$25.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 203 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.060 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$27.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 172 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.052 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.80 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.803 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 84.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.023 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.88 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.87 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.439 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$3.44 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.760 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.315 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.871 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.14 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.473 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.36 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.887 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.087 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.13 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.902 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.392 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.802 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.653 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.583 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.789 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.250 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.540 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.260 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.060 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.481 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.07 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.321 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.665 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.04 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.194 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.674 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$41.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 276 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.694 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$32.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 197 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.654 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$35.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 223 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.119 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$39.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.27 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-3.373 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$40.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 221 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.485 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$49.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 214 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.295 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$39.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 194 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.989 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$87.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 503 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.691 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$45.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 3.75 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}9.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$257 \mathrm{ms} \pm 772 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.059 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$10.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 46.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.585 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$10.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 66.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.922 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$10.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.434 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$10.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 56.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.216 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$10.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 53.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.922 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$10.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 57.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.662 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$10.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 48.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.225 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$10.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 51.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.605 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 53.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.805 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.751 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/block/v/1	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.35 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 50.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.819 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 53.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 66.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.269 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 59.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.03 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 45.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.620 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 46.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.378 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 43.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.138 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$56.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 366 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.511 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$111 \mathrm{ms} \pm 729 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.887 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$61.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 352 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.938 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$71.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 387 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.677 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$80.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 501 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.510 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$87.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 453 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.996 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$45.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 261 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.019 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$75.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 495 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.357 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$53.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 344 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.543 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$61.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 386 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.760 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$63.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 344 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.918 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$65.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 505 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.693 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$115 \mathrm{ms} \pm 598 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.397 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$125 \mathrm{ms} \pm 462 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.935 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$18.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 119 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.734 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$536 \mathrm{ms} \pm 991 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.518 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph