Add TPC-DS SLT plan tests - #9861
Performance Gate Passed
⚠️ 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.
⚠️ Different runtime environments detected
Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.
⚡ 2 improved benchmarks
✅ 2196 untouched benchmarks
🆕 4 new benchmarks
⏩ 218 skipped benchmarks1
Performance Changes
| Mode | Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ⚡ | Simulation | allocate_drop_arrow[0] |
456.9 ns | 402.7 ns | +13.45% |
| ⚡ | WallTime | mul_u32_nonnull_avx512 |
6.2 µs | 5.6 µs | +10.72% |
| 🆕 | Simulation | scalar_access[(1, false, false)] |
N/A | 208.9 µs | N/A |
| 🆕 | Simulation | scalar_access[(1024, false, false)] |
N/A | 132.3 ms | N/A |
| 🆕 | Simulation | scalar_access[(1024, false, true)] |
N/A | 133.3 ms | N/A |
| 🆕 | Simulation | scalar_access[(1024, true, false)] |
N/A | 100.8 ms | N/A |
Tip
Curious why performance improved? Comment @codspeedbot explain why performance improved on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.
Comparing ji/tpcds-slt-plans (05cb89f) with develop (d69291f)2
Footnotes
-
218 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(5c8cac4) during the generation of this report, so d69291f was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩