Skip to content

Skip codegen of unreachable int to decimal carrier arms - #10735

Open
robert3005 wants to merge 1 commit into
developfrom
rk/size-decimal-cast-carrier
Open

robert3005 wants to merge 1 commit into
developfrom
rk/size-decimal-cast-carrier

Skip codegen of unreachable int to decimal carrier arms

ec5286e
Select commit
Loading
Failed to load commit list.
CodSpeed / CodSpeed Performance Analysis failed Oct 23, 2026 in 0s

Performance Regression: -3.21%

2 warnings, 1 note

⚠️ Walltime results may be unreliable

Some benchmarks used the Walltime instrument outside CodSpeed Macro Runners, which can make the results inconsistent.

Learn more about Macro Runners

See affected benchmarks

⚠️ 16 benchmarks are dominated by system calls

System calls cannot be simulated consistently and are left out of the measure. The reported value understates the real cost. Switch to the Walltime instrument to measure them.

Learn more about system calls

See affected benchmarks

ℹ️ 40 benchmarks have no flamegraph

The flamegraph wasn't generated: the symbols of the profiling trace could not be resolved, because no information about the language frames was collected.

See affected benchmarks

⚡ 1 improved benchmark
❌ 4 regressed benchmarks
✅ 2403 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 12 skipped benchmarks1

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

Mode Benchmark BASE HEAD Efficiency
❌ CPU Simulation decode_primitives[i64, (1000, 8)] 24.8 µs 37.8 µs -34.35%
❌ Walltime threshold_avx512[80] 2.4 µs 2.8 µs -12.78%
❌ Walltime compare_u8_neon 1.7 µs 1.9 µs -11.61%
❌ Walltime starts_with_avx2[64, VarBin] 53.7 µs 60.6 µs -11.23%
⚡ Walltime mul_u64_nonnull_neon 39.4 µs 20.8 µs +89.11%

Tip

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


Comparing rk/size-decimal-cast-carrier (ec5286e) with develop (8c680f2)2

Open in CodSpeed

Footnotes

  1. 12 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. ↩

  2. No successful run was found on develop (c88edde) during the generation of this report, so 8c680f2 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩