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

---

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	Aug 1, 2026 2:08pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview	Aug 1, 2026 2:08pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Aug 1, 2026 2:08pm

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Touches Postgres connection pooling used by hash-graph-postgres-store; risk is limited to a dependency-only minor bump with no call-site changes in the PR.

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 now resolves deadpool 0.13.0 (with deadpool-runtime 0.3.1). deadpool-postgres 0.14.1 is unchanged and still pulls deadpool 0.12.3 transitively, so the lockfile keeps both deadpool versions side by side. No application or crate source changes in this diff.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 635786e. 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 59.58%. Comparing base (fb8a6d1) to head (635786e).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8700      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   59.58%   59.58%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1410     1410              
  Lines      137977   137980       +3     
  Branches     6494     6494              
==========================================
- Hits        82212    82210       -2     
- Misses      54729    54734       +5     
  Partials     1036     1036              

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.99% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	12.57% <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	2.55% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	10.02% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	12.25% <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> (-0.04%)	⬇️
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	7.37% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.59% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-embeddings	91.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	29.66% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	42.16% <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	79.82% <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 not alter performance

✅ 98 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing deps/rs/deadpool-rust-crates (635786e) with main (c84546d)¹}

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (a6674c8) during the generation of this report, so c84546d was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[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	$$26.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 137 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.025 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.23 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$13.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 101 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.770 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$45.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 410 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.698 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$17.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 193 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.70 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$25.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 182 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.355 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$27.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 253 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.023 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$4.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 106 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.074 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.575 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$3.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.480 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 42.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.023 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.23 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.074 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.359 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.942 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.20 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.031 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.194 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.474 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.72 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.678 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.07 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.18 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.78 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.491 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.707 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.13 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.673 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.997 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.736 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.114 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.001 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.513 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.44 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.125 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.046 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.877 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$42.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 178 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.064 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$34.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 194 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.764 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$37.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 197 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.019 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$33.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 190 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.752 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$44.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 284 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$51.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 452 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.724 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$41.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 274 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.814 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$93.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 661 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.794 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$34.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 214 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.073 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$304 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.08 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}8.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 54.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.598 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 115 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 53.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.567 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.866 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 65.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.658 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 60.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.897 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$11.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 62.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.325 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$11.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 72.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.913 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.766 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$11.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 87.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.170 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$11.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 65.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.498 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$12.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 85.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.891 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$11.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 52.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.916 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.184 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$11.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 62.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.255 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$11.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 65.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.309 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 67.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.439 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$11.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 67.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.042 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$11.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.946 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 41.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.235 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$61.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 333 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.719 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$113 \mathrm{ms} \pm 685 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.800 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$68.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 352 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.291 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$78.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 350 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.485 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$87.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 671 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.034 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$91.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 386 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.894 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$45.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 217 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.945 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$74.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 317 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.008 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$51.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 326 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.765 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$61.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 410 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.320 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$62.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 413 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.198 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$64.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 446 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.065 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$122 \mathrm{ms} \pm 511 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.931 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$135 \mathrm{ms} \pm 509 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.346 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$20.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 136 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.882 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$529 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.16 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-3.899 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph