BE-776, BE-777, BE-775: HashQL: Const-evaluable typed IDs, IdMatrix, and fixed-endianness ID byte layouts

[indietyp]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

HashQL's typed ID system gains three coupled capabilities: const-evaluable ID construction (BE-776), a dense IdMatrix addressed by typed IDs on both axes plus parallel iteration over the ID containers (BE-777), and fixed-endianness byte layouts through zerocopy (BE-775). The consumer driving all three is the atlas (#9305), which stores ID-indexed columns in on-disk artifacts that must read identically across machines, and iterates ID domains large enough for rayon to pay.

These land as one PR because the file topology couples them: core/src/id/slice.rs carries the const constructors, the rayon impls, and the zerocopy derives in one file, and a finer split would invent intermediate file states nobody wrote.

Review focus: the zerocopy derives pin byte layouts that read identically across targets. The second focus is the const support in the ID macros (macros/src/id/), the expansion downstream code relies on.

🔍 What does this change?

• hashql-core/src/id/: ID construction usable in const contexts, IdMatrix as a dense rectangular matrix addressed by typed IDs on both axes, rayon parallel iterators for the ID containers, and zerocopy-derived byte layouts with fixed endianness.
• hashql-macros/src/id/: the #[id] attribute gains const support (#[id(display = !, const)]) and emits the layouts above.
• hashql-mir, hashql-hir, hashql-eval: existing call sites (dominators, Tarjan, data-dependency graph, size estimation) adopt the new container APIs.
• hash-graph-api: one #[expect(clippy::missing_const_for_fn)] where the lint reports a false positive against the new const machinery.

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

🛡 What tests cover this?

• core/src/id/tests.rs covers the containers and layouts.
• The mir and type-inference suites exercise the adopted call sites.
• The workspace battery: cargo check, clippy at zero warnings across targets and features, fmt clean, cargo metadata --locked clean.

❓ How to test this?

cargo nextest run -p hashql-core --lib

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview	Aug 26, 2026 12:38pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Aug 26, 2026 12:38pm
petrinaut-docs	Ready	Preview	Aug 26, 2026 12:38pm

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	Aug 26, 2026 12:38pm

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 77.00000% with 69 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 60.48%. Comparing base (6e2b92d) to head (bf8cb38).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
libs/@local/hashql/core/src/id/matrix.rs	84.25%	19 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/core/src/id/vec.rs	54.83%	14 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/core/src/id/slice.rs	85.39%	13 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/core/src/id/index.rs	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/core/src/id/mod.rs	0.00%	7 Missing ⚠️
...hashql/core/src/graph/algorithms/dominators/mod.rs	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/core/src/id/bit_vec/mod.rs	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/core/src/graph/mod.rs	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9298      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   60.45%   60.48%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files        1431     1433       +2     
  Lines      141324   141602     +278     
  Branches     6623     6625       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits        85440    85653     +213     
- Misses      54803    54867      +64     
- Partials     1081     1082       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.99% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	14.66% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system	40.84% <ø> (ø)
local.claude-hooks	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client	51.49% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-backend-utils	3.27% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	10.02% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	12.22% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	2.36% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.81% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.19% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
rust.harpc-tower	67.03% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-wire-protocol	92.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-codec	72.76% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-config	100.00% <ø> (?)
rust.hash-graph-api	17.74% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authentication	96.36% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.59% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-embeddings	91.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	29.39% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	48.42% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	47.95% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-validation	84.71% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-ast	89.63% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	28.39% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	78.95% <75.95%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.51% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	79.82% <100.00%> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.09% <100.00%> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	87.92% <100.00%> (ø)
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.04% <ø> (ø)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 98 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing bm/be-776-hashql-const-ids (bf8cb38) with main (6e2b92d)}

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Changes macro-generated ID layouts and const/indexing contracts across HashQL; fixed-endian zerocopy encodings are persistence-sensitive, though bounded validation and new tests reduce regression risk.

Overview
Extends HashQL’s typed ID infrastructure so domain-indexed data can be built in const, laid out as dense matrices, scanned in parallel, and serialized with stable byte layouts—primarily for atlas-style on-disk artifacts.

The define_id! / #[id] macros now support const impls, optional unbounded ranges (no is clause), a get() scalar accessor, and unaligned + endian storage that pins IDs as zerocopy byte encodings (bounded IDs use hand-written TryFromBytes so out-of-range bytes are rejected). Id, IntoSliceIndex, and several graph helpers gain const APIs; NodeId / EdgeId use const newtypes.

IdMatrix is a new row-major matrix indexed by two ID types, with rows as IdSlice. IdSlice / IdVec add prefix views, chunk/window iterators (including ID-tagged enumerated forms), sorting/search helpers, into_raw / boxed conversions, optional rayon parallel iterators, and optional zerocopy on IdArray / IdSlice. DenseBitSet::words() exposes raw bit words for word-level readers.

Downstream crates adopt #[id(const)] and const methods in MIR/HIR/eval/graph paths; workspace adds rayon and zerocopy (0.8.55) with matching hashql-core features.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit bf8cb38. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[cursor]

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

There are 2 total unresolved issues (including 1 from previous review).

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

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 3fb52d2. Configure here.}

[github-actions]

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	$$27.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 252 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.713 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.681 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$12.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 113 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.661 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$43.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 444 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.458 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 158 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-11.015 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$23.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 209 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.179 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 241 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.017 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.341 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 123 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.887 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$4.36 \mathrm{ms} \pm 59.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}11.1 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}19.0 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$4.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 39.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}18.7 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$6.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 80.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}16.2 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 42.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.52 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 53.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$5.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 50.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}19.7 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$4.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 35.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}20.3 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$5.19 \mathrm{ms} \pm 50.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}24.8 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.346 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.58 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.38 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.002 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.88 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.57 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}14.9 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 38.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}15.0 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}19.8 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 39.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}16.7 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 38.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}20.6 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 39.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}20.5 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 35.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.44 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$42.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 224 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.468 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$33.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 194 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.327 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$35.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 214 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.141 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$35.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 812 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-23.235 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$41.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 237 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.237 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$50.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 409 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.027 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$41.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 329 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$93.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 662 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.03 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$34.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 273 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-39.315 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$273 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.06 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}5.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.477 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 54.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.552 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 74.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.156 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 75.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.012 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.724 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.499 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 85.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.142 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 86.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.843 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 75.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.500 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.946 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$11.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 100 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.275 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$11.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 70.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.204 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.933 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$11.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.177 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$11.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 72.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.557 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$11.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 88.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.310 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$11.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.427 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 111 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.699 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.702 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.58 \mathrm{ms} \pm 51.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.099 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$55.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 435 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.446 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$109 \mathrm{ms} \pm 651 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.023 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$64.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 435 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.682 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$73.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 667 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.069 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$83.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 782 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.280 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$88.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 585 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.970 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$42.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 329 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.546 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$71.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 566 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.790 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$48.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 515 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.506 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$58.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 520 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.689 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$60.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 550 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.934 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$60.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 517 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.095 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$124 \mathrm{ms} \pm 828 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$134 \mathrm{ms} \pm 653 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$18.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 150 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.102 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$535 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.34 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-3.738 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph