Update Rust toolchains to nightly-2026-05-27

[hash-worker]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Update	Change
rust	patch	2026-04-13 → 2026-05-27

---

Warning

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

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: (UTC)

• Branch creation
  • "before 11am"
• 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 Renovate Bot.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jun 1, 2026 7:57pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jun 1, 2026 7:57pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jun 1, 2026 7:57pm

[cursor]

PR Summary

Low Risk
Toolchain-only bump with mechanical API/syntax updates; no intentional behavior changes to auth, persistence, or business logic.

Overview
Bumps the workspace Rust toolchain from nightly-2026-04-13 to nightly-2026-05-27 (rust-toolchain.toml, error-stack badges/docs).

Follow-up edits align the tree with newer compiler/clippy behavior: const impl instead of impl const for const trait impls (HashQL core/diagnostics/MIR), const fn on simple graph/MIR/diagnostic accessors, and core_io / core::io (ErrorKind, Cursor) in harpc, compiletest, repo-chores, and eval tests instead of std::io where appropriate.

Minor cleanups: workspace Clippy allows inline_modules and inline_trait_bounds, inline format! args, debug_assert_eq in symbol repr, and a few redundant & removals in error messages.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit f51d95e. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Updates the repo Rust toolchain to nightly-2026-04-27 (from nightly-2026-04-13).

Changes: Aligns rust-toolchain.toml and the error-stack Rust version badges/documentation headers to reference the new nightly snapshot.

_{🤖 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.

[TimDiekmann]

Should finally fix the bug about incremental compilation.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 83.33333% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 59.08%. Comparing base (9eab148) to head (f51d95e).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
libs/@local/hashql/core/src/graph/linked.rs	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/body/terminator/mod.rs	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8682      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   59.09%   59.08%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1344     1343       -1     
  Lines      129782   129728      -54     
  Branches     5869     5866       -3     
==========================================
- Hits        76699    76652      -47     
+ Misses      52180    52173       -7     
  Partials      903      903              

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.41% <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-backend-utils	2.81% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	9.63% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.87% <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-graph-api	2.52% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.34% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	26.75% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
rust.hash-graph-store	37.76% <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	87.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	28.26% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	79.28% <80.00%> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.53% <100.00%> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	75.69% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.06% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	86.94% <83.33%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.06% <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 not alter performance

⚠️ 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

⚡ 4 improved benchmarks
❌ 5 (👁 5) regressed benchmarks
✅ 71 untouched benchmarks

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚡	linear	7.6 µs	6.8 µs	+13%
⚡	diamond	12 µs	10.9 µs	+10.07%
⚡	complex	17.9 µs	16.3 µs	+10.05%
👁	bit_matrix/dense/transitive_closure[200]	754.4 µs	907.1 µs	-16.83%
👁	bit_matrix/dense/transitive_closure[16]	4.8 µs	6 µs	-19.21%
👁	bit_matrix/sparse/union_rows[200]	12.1 µs	13.8 µs	-12.94%
👁	bit_matrix/dense/transitive_closure[64]	56.4 µs	71 µs	-20.53%
👁	bit_matrix/sparse/union_rows[64]	3.9 µs	4.5 µs	-12.16%
👁	pattern_match_constant	209.2 ns	180 ns	+16.2%

Tip

Curious why this is faster? Comment @codspeedbot explain why this is faster on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing deps/rs/rust-toolchains (f51d95e) with main (9eab148)}

[TimDiekmann]

@copilot fix the linting issues

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[Copilot]

@copilot fix the linting issues

Fixed in commit 2f0d2b8. The changes address 4 clippy warnings introduced by the new nightly:

• clippy::missing_const_for_fn: Added const to targets, targets_mut, and values in hashql/mir/src/body/terminator/switch_int.rs, and to as_slice in hashql/diagnostics/src/diagnostic/label.rs
• clippy::std_instead_of_core: Changed std::io::ErrorKind to core::io::ErrorKind in harpc/net/src/session/server/test.rs and repo-chores/rust/src/sync_turborepo/mod.rs

See the output of git range-diff at https://github.com/hashintel/hash/actions/runs/25164909600

[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.

[indietyp]

• Update Rust toolchains to nightly-2026-05-27 #8682 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

See the output of git range-diff at https://github.com/hashintel/hash/actions/runs/26497755528

[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 2706a3d. Configure here.}

[TimDiekmann]

@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request

[TimDiekmann]

I think we need to bump cargo-insta or rustix: mitsuhiko/insta#905. I have not investigated further, but the currently nightly having issues with the rustc attribute.

[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	$$26.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 201 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.078 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.116 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$13.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 84.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.884 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$43.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 388 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.519 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$15.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 106 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.258 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$25.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 169 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.299 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 194 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.570 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$4.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.75 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$15.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 129 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.868 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.905 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.185 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.679 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.05 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.192 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.134 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.321 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.280 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.188 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.611 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.439 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.784 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.10 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.77 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.72 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.96 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.89 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.20 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.670 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.81 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$3.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.945 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.123 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.606 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.23 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.817 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.512 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.05 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.22 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.32 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.542 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$55.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 303 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.109 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$47.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 202 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.555 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$51.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 377 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.066 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$44.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 182 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.991 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$63.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 422 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.697 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$62.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 331 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.676 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$58.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 365 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.603 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$106 \mathrm{ms} \pm 645 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.15 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$47.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 227 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.243 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$330 \mathrm{ms} \pm 991 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.46 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$20.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 165 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.166 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$20.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 93.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$21.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 129 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$20.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.820 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$26.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 139 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$20.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 123 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$20.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 134 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.433 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$20.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 108 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.826 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$21.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 121 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.195 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$26.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 195 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.388 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$37.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 269 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.97 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$38.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 309 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.34 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$37.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 329 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$34.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 296 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.610 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$36.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 307 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.519 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$36.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 310 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$36.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 324 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.96 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$37.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 283 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.99 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$36.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 332 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.80 \mathrm{ms} \pm 48.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.961 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$97.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 491 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$155 \mathrm{ms} \pm 665 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$106 \mathrm{ms} \pm 656 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$118 \mathrm{ms} \pm 653 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.97 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$126 \mathrm{ms} \pm 664 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$132 \mathrm{ms} \pm 585 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.08 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$108 \mathrm{ms} \pm 568 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.63 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$138 \mathrm{ms} \pm 758 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$115 \mathrm{ms} \pm 504 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.01 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$125 \mathrm{ms} \pm 742 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.80 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$126 \mathrm{ms} \pm 745 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.41 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$126 \mathrm{ms} \pm 736 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.72 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$193 \mathrm{ms} \pm 698 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.59 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$201 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.46 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}15.0 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$43.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 260 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.26 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$568 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.12 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.928 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph