Update Rust toolchains to nightly-2026-02-28

[hash-worker]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Update	Change
rust	patch	2026-02-09 -> 2026-02-28

---

Warning

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

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "before 11am" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 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 Renovate Bot.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Feb 28, 2026 1:53pm
hashdotdesign	Ready	Preview, Comment	Feb 28, 2026 1:53pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview, Comment	Feb 28, 2026 1:53pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview, Comment	Feb 28, 2026 1:53pm

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Toolchain bump plus removal of several #![feature(...)] gates can cause widespread build/test breakage if any crate still relies on those nightly features or if the new nightly introduces regressions.

Overview
Updates the repo Rust toolchain to nightly-2026-02-28 (including rust-toolchain.toml and error-stack rust-version badges).

Cleans up nightly feature usage across multiple crates/tests by removing assert_matches and if_let_guard feature gates and adjusting test-only cfg_attr feature lists accordingly.

Minor code hygiene tweaks: removes trailing commas in panic!/assert!/write!/unimplemented! calls, and simplifies error-stack backtrace/spantrace capture checks via Option::is_none_or without changing intended behavior.

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit cfe4029. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Updates the repo Rust toolchain from nightly-2026-02-09 to nightly-2026-02-16.
Changes: Refreshes the root rust-toolchain.toml and updates the corresponding Rust-version badges in libs/error-stack docs to match.

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

[augmentcode]

Review completed. No suggestions at this time.

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 75.00000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 62.60%. Comparing base (cf568ba) to head (cfe4029).
⚠️ Report is 15 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
libs/@local/harpc/types/src/subsystem.rs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8448      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   62.59%   62.60%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1296     1296              
  Lines      131021   131051      +30     
  Branches     5487     5487              
==========================================
+ Hits        82015    82050      +35     
+ Misses      48096    48091       -5     
  Partials      910      910              

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.40% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	0.00% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system	40.84% <ø> (ø)
local.claude-hooks	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client	51.24% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	7.78% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.87% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.22% <ø> (+0.03%)	⬆️
rust.harpc-tower	67.03% <ø> (+0.22%)	⬆️
rust.harpc-types	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
rust.harpc-wire-protocol	92.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-codec	72.76% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-api	2.86% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.34% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	27.47% <ø> (+0.10%)	⬆️
rust.hash-graph-store	37.86% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	47.95% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-validation	83.45% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-ast	87.25% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	29.69% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	82.32% <100.00%> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.43% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	69.13% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.10% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
rust.hashql-mir	91.78% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.05% <ø> (ø)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 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 19.34%

⚡ 1 improved benchmark
❌ 1 regressed benchmark
✅ 66 untouched benchmarks
🗄️ 12 archived benchmarks run¹

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚡	type_checker_simulation	510.3 ns	462.5 ns	+10.33%
❌	pattern_match_constant	121.7 ns	150.8 ns	-19.34%

---

_{Comparing deps/rs/rust-toolchains (cfe4029) with main (ef314c5)²}

Footnotes

1. 12 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. ↩

2. No successful run was found on main (e4abbb9) during the generation of this report, so ef314c5 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[hash-worker]

Edited/Blocked Notification

Renovate will not automatically rebase this PR, because it does not recognize the last commit author and assumes somebody else may have edited the PR.

You can manually request rebase by checking the rebase/retry box above.

⚠️ Warning: custom changes will be lost.

[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	$$28.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 177 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$14.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}11.4 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$45.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 290 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$15.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 113 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$25.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 228 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$29.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 180 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.43 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.56 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$15.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 97.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}12.1 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$4.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.06 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.24 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.24 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 40.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.243 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.49 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.96 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.74 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.78 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.39 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.402 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.730 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.079 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.335 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.196 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.120 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.23 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.217 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.129 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$3.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.663 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.286 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.22 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.249 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.092 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.092 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.22 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.706 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.53 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.364 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$42.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 188 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.41 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$80.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 442 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.615 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$47.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 237 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.640 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$50.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 295 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$59.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 419 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$43.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 182 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.192 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$430 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.23 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}2.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$98.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 550 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.110 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$90.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 415 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$294 \mathrm{ms} \pm 953 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.974 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$16.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.829 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$16.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.284 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$16.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 85.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$16.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 87.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.157 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$19.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 99.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.791 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$16.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 66.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.913 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$15.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 77.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.838 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$15.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 93.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.337 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$16.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.821 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$23.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 186 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.750 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$33.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 402 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.3 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$33.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 382 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$32.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 250 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$31.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 261 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.476 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$31.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 313 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.63 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$31.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 293 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$31.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 303 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.713 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$31.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 340 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.606 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$31.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 283 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.24 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 48.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$91.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 550 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$151 \mathrm{ms} \pm 716 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$102 \mathrm{ms} \pm 588 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.74 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$111 \mathrm{ms} \pm 520 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.75 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$117 \mathrm{ms} \pm 570 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.23 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$124 \mathrm{ms} \pm 500 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.72 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$93.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 517 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 579 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$99.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 398 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$110 \mathrm{ms} \pm 593 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$111 \mathrm{ms} \pm 500 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$112 \mathrm{ms} \pm 535 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$141 \mathrm{ms} \pm 594 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.06 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$138 \mathrm{ms} \pm 479 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.23 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$64.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 3.76 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-39.045 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$574 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.10 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}1.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph