Avoid row index canonicalization for trivial masks - #9717
Performance Regression: -4.73%
⚠️ 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.
⚡ 2 improved benchmarks
❌ 3 regressed benchmarks
✅ 2085 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 206 skipped benchmarks1
🗄️ 4 archived benchmarks run2
Warning
Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.
Performance Changes
| Mode | Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | WallTime | arrow_checked_add_u32_neon[16384] |
13.4 µs | 20.3 µs | -34.28% |
| ❌ | Simulation | cached_indices_i128[0.01] |
48.1 µs | 61.7 µs | -22.04% |
| ❌ | Simulation | compress_fsst[(500, 64, 8)] |
482.1 µs | 536.2 µs | -10.09% |
| ⚡ | Simulation | cached_indices_i32[0.01] |
51.6 µs | 37.5 µs | +37.4% |
| ⚡ | WallTime | words_gather_scalar_avx512[1024] |
124 ns | 100 ns | +24% |
Tip
Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.
Comparing dk/row-idx-mask-sequence-fast-path (130193d) with develop (e7512cf)3
Footnotes
-
206 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. ↩
-
4 benchmarks were run, but are now archived. If they were deleted in another branch, consider rebasing to remove them from the report. Instead if they were added back, click here to restore them. ↩
-
No successful run was found on
develop(e3923a5) during the generation of this report, so e7512cf was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩