Add `ListMin` and `ListMax` expressions by mhk197 · Pull Request #8856 · vortex-data/vortex

Performance Regression: -26.28%

⚡ 1 improved benchmark
❌ 2 regressed benchmarks
✅ 1844 untouched benchmarks
🆕 20 new benchmarks
⏩ 46 skipped benchmarks¹

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

	Mode	Benchmark	`BASE`	`HEAD`	Efficiency
❌	Simulation	`copy_nullable[65536]`	578.8 µs	1,362.5 µs	-57.52%
❌	Simulation	`copy_non_nullable[65536]`	799 µs	1,094.1 µs	-26.98%
⚡	Simulation	`decode_varbin[(1000, 4)]`	34.3 µs	26.6 µs	+29.13%
🆕	Simulation	`add_decimal_i128_nullable`	N/A	3.9 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`add_decimal_i64_nonnull`	N/A	1.9 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`vortex_fixed_size_list_max[(8192, 10)]`	N/A	788.7 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`vortex_fixed_size_list_max[(8192, 100)]`	N/A	3.3 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`vortex_fixed_size_list_max[(8192, 1000)]`	N/A	20.6 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`vortex_fixed_size_list_min[(8192, 10)]`	N/A	832.9 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`vortex_fixed_size_list_min[(8192, 100)]`	N/A	3.3 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`vortex_fixed_size_list_min[(8192, 1000)]`	N/A	20.6 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`vortex_list_max[(8192, 10)]`	N/A	1 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`vortex_list_max[(8192, 100)]`	N/A	3.5 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`vortex_list_max[(8192, 1000)]`	N/A	20.9 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`vortex_list_min[(8192, 10)]`	N/A	1.1 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`vortex_list_min[(8192, 100)]`	N/A	3.5 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`vortex_list_min[(8192, 1000)]`	N/A	20.9 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`vortex_listview_max[(8192, 10)]`	N/A	1 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`vortex_listview_max[(8192, 100)]`	N/A	3.4 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	`vortex_listview_max[(8192, 1000)]`	N/A	21.3 ms	N/A
...	...	...	...	...	...

ℹ️ Only the first 20 benchmarks are displayed. Go to the app to view all benchmarks.

Tip

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

_{Comparing mk/list-min-max (6c9b339) with develop (3a098b4)²}

46 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. ↩
No successful run was found on develop (46b0b2b) during the generation of this report, so 3a098b4 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩