BE-482: HashQL: Remove logical not from MIR and fix postgres boolean lowering by indietyp · Pull Request #8595 · hashintel/hash

indietyp · 2026-03-28T21:17:11Z

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Add proper boolean vs integer operator dispatch in the PostgreSQL SQL lowering, with ICE diagnostics for ambiguous cases and snapshot test coverage for all operator paths, as well as remove dedicated UnOp for logical not, in favour of bitwise not (similar to logical and and or being replaced).

🔍 What does this change?

Boolean/integer SQL operator dispatch: PostgreSQL requires different SQL operators for boolean and integer operands (NOT vs ~, AND vs &, OR vs |). The lowering now inspects the operand type via integer_type() and emits the correct SQL form.
ICE diagnostic for ambiguous operand types: Replaced three todo!() panics in the filter compiler with a proper AmbiguousIntegerType diagnostic (Severity::Bug). This fires if the operand type cannot be classified as boolean or integer, which is currently unreachable but would surface issues if GVN ever produces union-typed operands.
UnOp documentation: Added enum-level and per-variant doc comments matching the existing BinOp style.
op! macro fix: Unary operator arms now produce hashql_mir::body::rvalue::UnOp directly instead of hashql_hir::node::operation::UnOp, fixing a type mismatch in the builder.
SQL pretty-printing: Improved formatting of transpiled SQL in snapshot output.
New snapshot tests:
- binary_bitand_boolean_and: & on booleans lowers to AND
- binary_bitor_boolean_or: | on booleans lowers to OR
- binary_bitor_bigint_cast: | on integers lowers to |

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

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

The changes in this PR:

do not affect the execution graph

⚠️ Known issues

A future improvement would be to trace the type via the compiled SQL expression side rather than through the MIR operand type. This would allow disambiguation in cases where integer_type() cannot resolve (e.g. union types from GVN), since the SQL expression tree could carry its own type information. This is currently not needed as there's no way a union like that could be created.

🐾 Next steps

Consider expression-side type tracing as an alternative to integer_type() for operator dispatch, which would handle ambiguous union types gracefully instead of emitting an ICE.

🛡 What tests cover this?

New snapshot tests: binary_bitand_boolean_and, binary_bitor_boolean_or, binary_bitor_bigint_cast
Existing snapshot tests: unary_not (boolean NOT), unary_bitnot (integer NOT), binary_bitand_bigint_cast (integer AND)

❓ How to test this?

cargo test --package hashql-eval -- postgres::filter::tests
Confirm all snapshot tests pass, including the three new boolean/integer operator dispatch tests.

vercel · 2026-03-28T21:17:17Z

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 26, 2026 7:36am
hashdotdesign	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 26, 2026 7:36am
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	May 26, 2026 7:36am

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	May 26, 2026 7:36am

indietyp · 2026-03-28T21:17:35Z

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

codecov · 2026-03-28T21:20:31Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 85.07109% with 63 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 59.10%. Comparing base (cb459a8) to head (a0ace5a).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ass/execution/statement_placement/embedding/mod.rs	53.12%	15 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/eval/src/postgres/filter/mod.rs	83.56%	12 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/body/rvalue/unary.rs	33.33%	10 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/eval/src/postgres/types.rs	55.00%	9 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pretty/text.rs	75.00%	7 Missing ⚠️
...hashql/mir/src/pass/transform/inst_simplify/mod.rs	20.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
...cal/hashql/mir/src/pass/execution/splitting/mod.rs	97.01%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...pass/execution/statement_placement/postgres/mod.rs	93.75%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/eval/src/postgres/error.rs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/reify/rvalue.rs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8595      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   58.81%   59.10%   +0.28%     
==========================================
  Files        1328     1340      +12     
  Lines      126811   129156    +2345     
  Branches     5790     5837      +47     
==========================================
+ Hits        74580    76332    +1752     
- Misses      51350    51923     +573     
- Partials      881      901      +20

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-api	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
local.claude-hooks	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
local.harpc-client	`51.24% <ø> (ø)`
rust.error-stack	`90.87% <ø> (ø)`
rust.harpc-net	`96.19% <ø> (-0.04%)`	⬇️
rust.harpc-tower	`67.03% <ø> (ø)`
rust.harpc-types	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-codec	`72.76% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-store	`37.76% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-types	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-validation	`83.45% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-ast	`87.23% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-eval	`75.69% <76.59%> (-1.85%)`	⬇️
rust.hashql-mir	`86.74% <87.50%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	`94.06% <ø> (ø)`

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 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 · 2026-03-28T21:22:55Z

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 80 untouched benchmarks

_{Comparing bm/be-482-hashql-remove-logical-not-from-unary-operators (a0ace5a) with bm/be-474-hashql-take-into-account-terminators-eligibility-when (65a8a94)}

github-actions · 2026-03-28T22:36:20Z

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	$$27.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 191 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.963 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.198 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 92.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.114 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$42.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 374 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.866 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$13.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 107 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$23.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 179 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.869 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 190 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.349 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.803 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 125 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.896 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.57 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.34 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.40 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.41 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.53 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.433 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.104 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.64 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.40 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.23 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.63 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.067 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.716 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.71 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.576 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.036 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.659 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.07 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.242 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.05 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.982 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.29 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.813 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.50 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.333 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.868 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.39 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.029 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.689 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.274 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$43.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 200 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.777 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$80.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 427 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.030 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$49.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 206 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.070 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$52.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 356 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$59.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 314 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.595 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$45.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 204 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.462 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$418 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.20 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-0.623 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$99.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 433 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.015 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$88.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 353 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.899 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$287 \mathrm{ms} \pm 809 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.347 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$18.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 96.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.811 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 101 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.015 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.372 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 109 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.395 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$24.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 131 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.954 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$18.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 97.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.809 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$18.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 126 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.412 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$19.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 108 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.038 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$19.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.366 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$26.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 276 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.93 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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`	$$32.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 271 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.138 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1`	$$35.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 303 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.35 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1`	$$33.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 290 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.585 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1`	$$34.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 285 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.854 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2`	$$35.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 328 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1`	$$34.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 269 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.361 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1`	$$34.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 287 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.538 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1`	$$34.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 336 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.05 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1`	$$34.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 303 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.23 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: `bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba`	$$8.32 \mathrm{ms} \pm 42.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.182 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$94.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 528 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.835 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$142 \mathrm{ms} \pm 630 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.984 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$101 \mathrm{ms} \pm 586 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.06 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$110 \mathrm{ms} \pm 606 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.489 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$119 \mathrm{ms} \pm 676 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.065 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$125 \mathrm{ms} \pm 766 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.19 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$98.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 461 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.071 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$127 \mathrm{ms} \pm 686 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.068 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 596 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.403 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$114 \mathrm{ms} \pm 821 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.792 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$116 \mathrm{ms} \pm 784 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.679 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$117 \mathrm{ms} \pm 695 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.479 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$133 \mathrm{ms} \pm 639 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.22 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$144 \mathrm{ms} \pm 474 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.56 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$103 \mathrm{ms} \pm 417 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.509 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$543 \mathrm{ms} \pm 2.42 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-1.984 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

cursor · 2026-04-29T15:42:43Z

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Changes SQL generation for filters and graph reads; incorrect operator choice would affect query results, though behavior is heavily snapshot-tested.

Overview
This PR unifies logical and bitwise negation in MIR by dropping a separate UnOp::Not: HIR ! and ~ both lower to UnOp::BitNot, and tests/macros now use un.~ instead of un.!.

PostgreSQL filter lowering now picks SQL operators from operand types via integer_type(): booleans get NOT, AND, and OR (with ::boolean casts); integers get ~, &, and | (with ::bigint where needed). Unresolved operands emit an AmbiguousIntegerType bug diagnostic instead of panicking.

Snapshot coverage adds boolean &/| cases, runs sqruff on generated SQL for formatting, and refreshes many postgres filter snapshots. MIR interpreter, inst-simplify, and related UI snapshots are updated for the BitNot-only unary model.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit a0ace5a. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

augmentcode · 2026-04-29T17:37:13Z

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: This PR simplifies HashQL MIR unary operators by removing a dedicated logical NOT, and fixes PostgreSQL SQL lowering to correctly choose boolean vs integer operator forms.

Changes:

Collapse HIR unary NOT/bitwise-NOT into a single MIR UnOp::BitNot (plus Neg), updating builders, reification, interpreter, and passes accordingly.
Add Postgres operator dispatch so ~/&/| lower to NOT/AND/OR for booleans, and to bitwise operators for integers.
Introduce integer_type() classification helper and a new AmbiguousIntegerType ICE diagnostic to replace previous todo!() panics.
Export VariadicOperator from the Postgres query module and use variadic expressions for boolean conjunction/disjunction lowering.
Improve snapshot readability by running generated SQL through sqruff in tests and updating existing snapshots; add new snapshot tests for boolean/integer operator paths.

Technical Notes: The Postgres lowering now relies on MIR operand typing (via integer_type()) to select SQL operators; ambiguous/unclassifiable types emit a bug-level diagnostic and lower to NULL.

_{🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎}

augmentcode

Review completed. No suggestions at this time.

Comment augment review to trigger a new review at any time.

cursor

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 2 potential issues.

^{❌ Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with cloud agents, enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.}

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 9be4564. Configure here.}

indietyp and others added 7 commits March 22, 2026 18:24

feat: checkpoint

9c6c97e

feat: checkpoint

5e3e3f6

feat: checkpoint

e0ff7d9

feat: checkpoint

954691f

feat: tests

4e01b48

feat: tests

4c01392

chore: format

7a4b6cf

github-actions Bot added area/deps Relates to third-party dependencies (area) area/libs Relates to first-party libraries/crates/packages (area) type/eng > backend Owned by the @backend team area/tests New or updated tests labels Mar 28, 2026

indietyp mentioned this pull request Mar 28, 2026

BE-474: HashQL: Take into account terminator target eligibility in execution backend placement #8587

Merged

4 tasks

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hashdotdesign-tokens March 28, 2026 21:19 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hashdotdesign March 28, 2026 21:20 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut March 28, 2026 21:20 View deployment

github-advanced-security AI found potential problems Mar 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash March 28, 2026 21:30 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash April 29, 2026 15:17 View deployment

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-482-hashql-remove-logical-not-from-unary-operators branch from 5077924 to a5f3a6a Compare April 29, 2026 15:23

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-474-hashql-take-into-account-terminators-eligibility-when branch from 093d025 to 1646ca9 Compare April 29, 2026 15:23

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut April 29, 2026 15:26 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash April 29, 2026 15:31 View deployment

fix: suggestions from code review

44e5068

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-474-hashql-take-into-account-terminators-eligibility-when branch from 1646ca9 to fb03f81 Compare April 29, 2026 15:32

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-482-hashql-remove-logical-not-from-unary-operators branch from a5f3a6a to 68d7a83 Compare April 29, 2026 15:32

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut April 29, 2026 15:35 View deployment

fix: docs

d8f35ba

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash April 29, 2026 15:39 View deployment

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-482-hashql-remove-logical-not-from-unary-operators branch from 68d7a83 to 1685178 Compare April 29, 2026 15:40

chore: remove backup

fcdabff

indietyp marked this pull request as ready for review April 29, 2026 15:42

cursor Bot reviewed Apr 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/interpret/tests.rs Outdated

Comment thread libs/@local/hashql/eval/src/postgres/filter/tests.rs

cursor Bot reviewed Apr 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread libs/@local/hashql/eval/tests/ui/postgres/filter/island_exit_empty_arrays.snap

augmentcode Bot reviewed Apr 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

indietyp added 6 commits April 30, 2026 10:57

chore: remove redundant ice

f3ebd71

fix: tests

07720cf

chore: fix docs

6e94a56

chore: update snapshots

65a8a94

feat: type aware operator selection

1922a9d

chore: fix doctests

a0ace5a

cursor Bot reviewed May 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread libs/@local/hashql/eval/src/postgres/filter/mod.rs

Comment thread libs/@local/hashql/eval/src/postgres/filter/mod.rs

Conversation

indietyp commented Mar 28, 2026

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

🔍 What does this change?

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

⚠️ Known issues

🐾 Next steps

🛡 What tests cover this?

❓ How to test this?

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Mar 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

indietyp commented Mar 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Mar 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq Bot commented Mar 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Merging this PR will not alter performance

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Mar 28, 2026

Benchmark results

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

policy_resolution_medium

policy_resolution_none

policy_resolution_small

read_scaling_complete

read_scaling_linkless

representative_read_entity

representative_read_entity_type

representative_read_multiple_entities

scenarios

Uh oh!

cursor Bot commented Apr 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

PR Summary

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

augmentcode Bot commented Apr 29, 2026

Uh oh!

augmentcode Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cursor Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

vercel Bot commented Mar 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

indietyp commented Mar 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Mar 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codspeed-hq Bot commented Mar 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

cursor Bot commented Apr 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading