Automate RowFn benchmark comparisons by connortsui20 · Pull Request #9351 · vortex-data/vortex

Performance Gate Passed

✅ 2019 untouched benchmarks
🆕 16 new benchmarks
⏩ 89 skipped benchmarks¹

	Mode	Benchmark	`BASE`	`HEAD`	Efficiency
🆕	Simulation	`handrolled_sink_wrapping_add`	N/A	1.7 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`row_checked_add`	N/A	2.1 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`row_checked_add_constant`	N/A	1.8 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`row_checked_add_nullable`	N/A	2.1 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`row_sink_wrapping_add`	N/A	2.8 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`row_wrapping_add`	N/A	1.8 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`row_wrapping_add_constant`	N/A	1.7 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`row_wrapping_add_nullable`	N/A	1.8 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`eager_chain[1048576]`	N/A	25.2 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`eager_chain[65536]`	N/A	1.9 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`eager[1048576]`	N/A	9.3 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`eager[65536]`	N/A	657.6 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`lazy_chain[1048576]`	N/A	23.2 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`lazy_chain[65536]`	N/A	1.3 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`lazy[1048576]`	N/A	9.4 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`lazy[65536]`	N/A	663.8 µs	N/A

_{Comparing ct/row-fn-benchmark-tools (1f8a2ae) with ct/row-fn-spatial-predicates (a7f8ee0)}

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. ↩