BE-302: HashQL: Statement cost analysis for execution target placement #8339

indietyp · 2026-01-29T18:53:39Z

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Implement statement coloring (cost analysis) for the HashQL MIR execution analysis module. This enables the compiler to determine which statements can be executed on different backends (Postgres, Embedding DB, Interpreter) by assigning costs to each statement.

🔗 Related links

Linear: BE-302

🚫 Blocked by

N/A

🔍 What does this change?

New execution analysis module (pass/analysis/execution/):

cost.rs: Cost type with overflow-safe arithmetic, StatementCostVec and TraversalCostVec for tracking costs per statement/traversal
target.rs: ExecutionTarget trait and implementations for Postgres, Interpreter, Embedding
statement_placement/: Framework for computing which statements can run on each backend
- common.rs: Shared cost visitor logic
- postgres/: Postgres backend - supports binary/unary ops, aggregates (tuple/struct), input, entity projections (JSONB/columns)
- embedding/: Embedding DB backend - only supports entity.encodings.vectors projections
- interpret/: Interpreter backend - universal fallback, supports all statements
- lookup/: Entity projection path lookup trie mapping field paths to Access (Postgres column, JSONB, Embedding)

Pretty printer enhancements:

Added TextFormatAnnotations trait for annotating MIR output with cost information
Refactored to use line buffering for proper annotation alignment
Cost annotations appear as // cost: N comments on statements

Symbol table additions:

Added sym::lexical::foo, bar, unknown for testing
Changed PathNode.name from Symbol<'static> to &'static Symbol<'static> to prevent symbol duplication across crates

Type visitor improvements:

Extended TypeVisitor with additional traversal methods

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

This PR:

does not modify any publishable blocks or libraries, or modifications do not need publishing

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

The changes in this PR:

are internal and do not require a docs change

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

The changes in this PR:

do not affect the execution graph

🛡 What tests cover this?

Unit tests in cost.rs (Cost arithmetic, StatementCostVec indexing)
Snapshot tests for statement placement across all three backends (16 new snapshots)
Unit tests for entity projection lookup in lookup/tests.rs
Unit tests for ExecutionTarget in target.rs

❓ How to test this?

cargo nextest run --package hashql-mir
cargo insta test --package hashql-mir

vercel · 2026-01-29T18:53:47Z

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Feb 2, 2026 4:42pm
petrinaut	Error		Feb 2, 2026 4:42pm

2 Skipped Deployments

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign	Ignored	Preview	Feb 2, 2026 4:42pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	Feb 2, 2026 4:42pm

cursor · 2026-01-29T18:53:47Z

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Introduces new execution-cost analysis and backend placement logic plus refactors core/type visiting and MIR pretty-printing, so regressions could affect optimizer decisions and test tooling despite being largely internal and well-tested.

Overview
Adds a new MIR execution analysis module that assigns per-statement and per-traversal costs and computes backend placement for Postgres, Embedding, and Interpreter, including entity-field projection lookup via a schema trie.

Refactors MIR pretty-printing to use TextFormatOptions + TextFormatAnnotations (supporting inline cost comments) and updates existing tests/formatters accordingly; extends the body! test macro to support named-field projections and [Opaque ...] types, and wires new symbol-path constants (e.g., sym::path::Entity) used by the placement logic.

Includes supporting core changes: type::visit::Visitor now returns a Try-based result with helper recursion guard, DenseBitSet gains a set helper, and several MIR/interpret helpers become const (with updated miri test selection and minor docs fixes).

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit cc929a8. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

github-actions · 2026-01-30T11:46:22Z

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	$$26.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 117 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.585 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.24 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.813 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 117 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.026 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$42.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 330 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.042 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 101 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.27 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$24.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 146 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.958 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$43.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 281 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.779 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$20.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-12.882 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$31.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 217 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.832 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.81 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.586 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.14 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.807 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$4.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.605 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.36 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.098 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$3.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.531 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$3.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.599 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.20 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.710 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$3.82 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.265 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.01 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.44 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.971 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.50 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.71 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$2.78 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.865 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.293 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.23 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.901 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.09 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.470 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.245 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$2.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.291 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.60 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.707 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.218 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$38.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 155 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.728 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$75.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 343 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.739 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$43.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 192 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.004 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$45.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 248 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.815 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$52.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 246 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.634 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$40.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 172 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.330 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$419 \mathrm{ms} \pm 952 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.984 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$93.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 434 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.832 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$83.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 354 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.599 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$310 \mathrm{ms} \pm 786 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.9 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$14.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 54.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.700 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$14.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.057 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.109 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$14.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 59.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.096 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$16.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 113 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.420 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$14.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 74.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.709 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$14.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 62.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.370 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$14.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 50.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.821 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 72.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.842 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$21.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 143 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.647 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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`	$$31.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 306 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1`	$$30.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 327 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1`	$$30.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 305 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.80 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1`	$$31.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 306 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2`	$$31.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 286 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1`	$$29.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 271 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.491 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1`	$$30.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 341 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.675 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1`	$$30.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 344 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.93 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1`	$$30.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 289 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: `bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba`	$$8.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$46.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 275 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.167 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$92.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 396 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.175 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$52.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 249 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.05 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$60.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 325 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.833 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$68.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 359 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.115 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$74.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 376 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.112 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$49.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 202 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.089 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$76.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 311 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.426 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$56.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 296 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.209 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$64.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 246 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.139 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$67.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 327 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.509 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$67.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 359 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.914 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$135 \mathrm{ms} \pm 543 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.34 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$134 \mathrm{ms} \pm 468 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.99 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$84.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 2.88 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-18.172 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$570 \mathrm{ms} \pm 724 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.716 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/analysis/execution/statement_placement/postgres/tests.rs

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.}

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/analysis/execution/statement_placement/common.rs

indietyp added 26 commits January 22, 2026 12:38

chore: add missing docs

69e3fa9

chore: checkpoint

33cc3f4

chore: outline

00ecafc

feat: figure out what to do

8b91ad0

feat: checkpoint

a851607

feat: checkpoint

84ded8f

chore: checkpoint

dcdb805

feat: checkpoint

b44d150

feat: checkpoint

fbb678c

feat: checkpoint

e95636e

chore: write down the thoughts

5313a2d

chore: checkpoint

d48b6a8

feat: shuffle things around

085ae98

feat: checkpoint

1f3c15b

feat: checkpoint

72e55d4

feat: checkpoint

d99e870

chore: checkpoint

771003d

feat: checkpoint

39f7df6

feat: checkpoint

e7b70cf

feat: make everything pub

ae1561b

chore: docs

0df80a3

feat: move to line buffer for text

4a2e300

feat: pretty

23258b5

chore: comments

8d47966

feat: checkpoint

4e072d6

feat: tests

1a8c424

graphite-app bot assigned indietyp Jan 29, 2026

github-actions bot added the area/infra Relates to version control, CI, CD or IaC (area) label Jan 29, 2026

fix: recursive guard

64a6ca1

vercel bot temporarily deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 29, 2026 20:46 Inactive

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-317-hashql-projectionextraction-for-entity-access branch from 6ffafd7 to b4bf91a Compare January 29, 2026 20:48

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-302-hashql-statement-coloring-based-on-capabilities branch from 738c295 to d838213 Compare January 29, 2026 20:48

vercel bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 29, 2026 20:52 View deployment

vercel bot deployed to Preview – hash January 29, 2026 21:01 View deployment

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-317-hashql-projectionextraction-for-entity-access branch from b4bf91a to 8f967ee Compare January 30, 2026 10:36

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-302-hashql-statement-coloring-based-on-capabilities branch from d838213 to e81fd90 Compare January 30, 2026 10:36

vercel bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut January 30, 2026 10:40 View deployment

vercel bot deployed to Preview – hash January 30, 2026 10:46 View deployment

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-317-hashql-projectionextraction-for-entity-access branch from 8f967ee to dbbeb22 Compare January 30, 2026 23:24

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-302-hashql-statement-coloring-based-on-capabilities branch from e81fd90 to 0af7773 Compare January 30, 2026 23:24

indietyp mentioned this pull request Jan 30, 2026

BE-360: HashQL: Rework compiletest UI #8340

Open

3 tasks

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview – hash January 30, 2026 23:27 Failure

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview – petrinaut January 30, 2026 23:27 Failure

fix: graph read support

4ba813c

vercel bot temporarily deployed to Preview – petrinaut February 2, 2026 09:20 Inactive

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview – hash February 2, 2026 09:23 Failure

github-advanced-security bot found potential problems Feb 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

chore: fix lints

cc929a8

vercel bot temporarily deployed to Preview – petrinaut February 2, 2026 09:33 Inactive

indietyp mentioned this pull request Feb 2, 2026

BE-364: Rework symbol representation for speed and size #8343

Open

3 tasks

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview – hash February 2, 2026 09:36 Failure

cursor bot reviewed Feb 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/analysis/execution/statement_placement/common.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-317-hashql-projectionextraction-for-entity-access branch from dbbeb22 to 5d5cff3 Compare February 2, 2026 16:36

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-302-hashql-statement-coloring-based-on-capabilities branch from e803a60 to cc929a8 Compare February 2, 2026 16:36

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview – petrinaut February 2, 2026 16:39 Failure

vercel bot deployed to Preview – hash February 2, 2026 16:42 View deployment

indietyp mentioned this pull request Feb 3, 2026

BE-303: HashQL: Split MIR basic blocks by target support #8354

Open

3 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

BE-302: HashQL: Statement cost analysis for execution target placement #8339

BE-302: HashQL: Statement cost analysis for execution target placement #8339

Uh oh!

indietyp commented Jan 29, 2026

Uh oh!

vercel bot commented Jan 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

cursor bot commented Jan 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 30, 2026

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

policy_resolution_medium

policy_resolution_none

policy_resolution_small

read_scaling_complete

read_scaling_linkless

representative_read_entity

representative_read_entity_type

representative_read_multiple_entities

scenarios

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cursor bot left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

BE-302: HashQL: Statement cost analysis for execution target placement #8339

Are you sure you want to change the base?

BE-302: HashQL: Statement cost analysis for execution target placement #8339

Uh oh!

Conversation

indietyp commented Jan 29, 2026

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

🔗 Related links

🚫 Blocked by

🔍 What does this change?

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

🛡 What tests cover this?

❓ How to test this?

Uh oh!

vercel bot commented Jan 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cursor bot commented Jan 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

PR Summary

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 30, 2026

Benchmark results

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

policy_resolution_medium

policy_resolution_none

policy_resolution_small

read_scaling_complete

read_scaling_linkless

representative_read_entity

representative_read_entity_type

representative_read_multiple_entities

scenarios

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cursor bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

vercel bot commented Jan 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

cursor bot commented Jan 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading