Update Rust crate deadpool to 0.13.0

[hash-worker]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Type	Update	Change
deadpool	workspace.dependencies	minor	0.12.3 → 0.13.0

---

Warning

Some dependencies could not be looked up. Check the Dependency Dashboard for more information.

---

Release Notes

deadpool-rs/deadpool (deadpool)

v0.13.0

Compare Source

v0.12.4

Compare Source

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: (UTC)

• Branch creation
  • "before 4am every weekday,every weekend"
• Automerge
  • "before 4am every weekday,every weekend"

🚦 Automerge: Enabled.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR has been generated by Mend Renovate.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jul 11, 2026 11:48am
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jul 11, 2026 11:48am
petrinaut	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jul 11, 2026 11:48am

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
deadpool backs Postgres connection pooling in hash-graph-postgres-store; a minor release can change pool/runtime behavior without any in-repo code updates to adapt.

Overview
Bumps the workspace deadpool dependency from 0.12.3 to 0.13.0 in Cargo.toml and refreshes Cargo.lock.

hash-graph-postgres-store resolves against deadpool 0.13.0 (with deadpool-runtime 0.3.1). deadpool-postgres 0.14.1 still pulls deadpool 0.12.3, so both major lines coexist in the lockfile until that crate upgrades. No Rust source files change—only the dependency pins.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit d7bd55c. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Updates the Rust workspace dependency deadpool from 0.12.3 to 0.13.0.

Changes: Bumps the version in Cargo.toml and refreshes Cargo.lock accordingly.

Why: Routine dependency maintenance via Renovate.

Technical Notes: Since deadpool is pre-1.0, this minor bump may include API/behavior changes and updated runtime/MSRV constraints.

Considerations: Confirm there’s no version skew/type mismatch with crates that also pull in deadpool transitively (e.g. via deadpool-postgres).

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

[augmentcode]

Review completed. 1 suggestion posted.

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

[augmentcode]

Cargo.toml:139 — deadpool-postgres 0.14.1 depends on deadpool ^0.12, so bumping the workspace deadpool to 0.13 can introduce two deadpool versions and lead to type incompatibilities if any crate ends up using both directly. It may be worth double-checking the dependency graph/usages to ensure everything is consistently on the same deadpool API surface.

Severity: medium

_{🤖 Was this useful? React with 👍 or 👎, or 🚀 if it prevented an incident/outage.}

[cursor]

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

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

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 252d9ba. Configure here.}

[cursor]

Incompatible deadpool versions between direct and transitive dependencies

High Severity

Upgrading deadpool to 0.13.0 while deadpool-postgres (0.14.1) still depends on deadpool ^0.12.0 introduces two incompatible versions of deadpool in the dependency tree. The hash-graph-postgres-store crate declares deadpool as public = true, so downstream consumers see deadpool 0.13.0 types, but deadpool-postgres exposes types (like Pool, PoolConfig, PoolError) based on deadpool 0.12.3. These types are not interchangeable across semver-incompatible 0.x versions in Rust. No version of deadpool-postgres currently supports deadpool 0.13.0.

Additional Locations (2)

• Cargo.lock#L3528-L3530
• Cargo.lock#L2113-L2114

 

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 252d9ba. Configure here.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 59.73%. Comparing base (6736174) to head (d7bd55c).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8700   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   59.73%   59.73%           
=======================================
  Files        1371     1371           
  Lines      135461   135461           
  Branches     6066     6066           
=======================================
  Hits        80911    80911           
  Misses      53618    53618           
  Partials      932      932           

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.39% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	6.39% <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	1.90% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	10.02% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.18% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.89% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.19% <ø> (ø)
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-graph-api	7.41% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.59% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-embeddings	91.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	29.13% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	38.47% <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	78.98% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.51% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	80.04% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.09% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	87.92% <ø> (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 degrade performance by 15.38%

⚠️ Different runtime environments detected

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

❌ 2 regressed benchmarks
✅ 96 untouched benchmarks

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	bit_matrix/dense/iter_row[64]	140.8 ns	170 ns	-17.16%
❌	bit_matrix/dense/iter_row[200]	185.8 ns	215 ns	-13.57%

Tip

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

---

_{Comparing deps/rs/deadpool-rust-crates (d7bd55c) with main (5a90775)}

[claude]

Closing this without merging: the deadpool 0.13 bump can't ship on its own. deadpool-postgres (latest 0.14.1) still requires deadpool ^0.12, and the direct deadpool dependency in hash-graph-postgres-store is declared public = true as a re-export marker, so cargo must resolve it to the same package that deadpool-postgres uses. With this bump they resolve to two different deadpool versions, cargo's unused_dependencies lint fires, and the Package check fails.

The shared Renovate preset (hashintel/.github renovate-config.json) has a package rule grouping the deadpool* crates, so the next time an update is available both deadpool and deadpool-postgres will arrive together in a single PR — once deadpool-postgres supports the new deadpool major, that grouped PR should pass.

Leaving the branch in place for Renovate.

[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	$$27.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 232 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.721 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.723 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$13.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 106 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-11.174 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$44.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 412 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.998 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$15.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 146 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.549 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$24.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 225 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.596 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$29.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 235 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.713 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.791 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$14.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 103 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.583 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.361 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.021 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$3.40 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.839 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.23 \mathrm{ms} \pm 37.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.799 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.64 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.247 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.25 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.094 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.908 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.071 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.15 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.613 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.71 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.90 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.580 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.87 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.04 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.78 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.22 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.145 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.869 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.03 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.046 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.53 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.950 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.07 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.340 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.272 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.365 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.44 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.672 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$42.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 237 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.117 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$33.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 201 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.644 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$36.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 288 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.704 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$31.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 197 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.450 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$43.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 290 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.632 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$50.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 318 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.550 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$40.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 269 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.905 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$92.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 516 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.993 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$34.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 238 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.121 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$274 \mathrm{ms} \pm 920 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.498 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.371 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 67.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.455 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.629 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 62.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.425 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 61.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.955 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 67.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.369 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 66.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.899 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 85.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.887 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 55.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.612 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 80.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.387 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 60.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 98.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.44 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.301 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.46 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 72.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.602 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 74.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.085 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 70.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 40.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.512 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$60.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 452 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.050 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$115 \mathrm{ms} \pm 555 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.892 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$66.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 424 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.130 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$77.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 533 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.772 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$89.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 496 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.564 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$93.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 623 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.099 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$46.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 319 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.274 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$76.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 446 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.378 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$53.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 369 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.782 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$62.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 465 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.881 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$64.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 354 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.034 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$65.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 560 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.123 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 638 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.250 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$132 \mathrm{ms} \pm 652 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.331 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$19.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 141 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.57 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$545 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.54 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.480 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph