BE-434: HashQL: Refactor entity storage path resolution with centralized schema mapping by indietyp · Pull Request #8496 · hashintel/hash

indietyp · 2026-02-28T16:38:39Z

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

This PR refactors the entity field path resolution system in the HashQL MIR execution layer. It consolidates the scattered path lookup logic into a centralized storage module with a strongly-typed EntityPath enum, improving maintainability and type safety for backend placement decisions.

🔍 What does this change?

Adds base_url and version symbols to the core symbol definitions
Implements AsRef<Self> for Projection to improve ergonomics
Creates a new storage module with EntityPath enum that exhaustively represents all entity field paths
Replaces the trie-based path lookup system with direct pattern matching on projection sequences
Introduces VertexType enum to classify vertex types in GraphReadFilter bodies
Consolidates entity projection access logic into a single entity_projection_access function
Updates both Postgres and Embedding statement placement to use the new centralized path resolution
Removes the old lookup module and its trie-based implementation
Adds comprehensive test coverage for the new path resolution system

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?

Existing unit tests for entity projection path lookup have been updated and expanded
New tests cover the EntityPath::resolve method and index tracking functionality
Tests verify JSONB path handling and composite path early exit behavior

❓ How to test this?

Checkout the branch
Run the existing test suite to ensure no regressions
Verify that entity field access patterns continue to work correctly in both Postgres and Embedding backends

feat: checkpoint (II) feat: checkpoint (III) feat: snapshot vec feat: add dedicated filter feat: checkpoint feat: filter implementation feat: filter implementation (mostly) done chore: environment capture note chore: always postgres bigint feat: target clone feat: simplify lookup feat: move storage up feat: eval entity path chore: checkpoint chore: checkpoint chore: find entrypoint feat: eval context feat: eval cleanup chore: cleanup feat: track index feat: wire up filter feat: add error reporting chore: checkpoint

cursor · 2026-02-28T16:38:44Z

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Moderate risk because it rewires execution-target placement decisions for entity field projections (Postgres vs embedding) and replaces the lookup mechanism; mis-resolution could change which backend executes parts of a query.

Overview
Refactors MIR execution statement placement to centralize entity field storage resolution in a new execution::storage module, replacing the removed trie-based statement_placement::lookup implementation.

Introduces a typed EntityPath + Access mapping (including JSONB vs composite handling and an index of consumed projections) and routes entity_projection_access through it; Postgres/Embedding placement now use this shared logic along with a new VertexType classifier for GraphReadFilter vertex locals.

Adds symbols base_url and version, implements AsRef for Projection, and adds/updates unit tests to cover the new resolver behavior and edge cases (e.g., non-field projections after composite nodes).

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 3d9cc9d. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

vercel · 2026-02-28T16:38:44Z

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Error		Mar 2, 2026 9:36pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Mar 2, 2026 9:36pm

2 Skipped Deployments

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign	Ignored	Preview	Mar 2, 2026 9:36pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	Mar 2, 2026 9:36pm

indietyp · 2026-02-28T16:38:56Z

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

augmentcode · 2026-02-28T16:42:21Z

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Refactors HashQL MIR execution placement by centralizing entity field storage path resolution.

Changes:

Adds new core symbols base_url and version
Adds an AsRef impl for Projection to improve call-site ergonomics
Introduces pass::execution::storage with a strongly-typed EntityPath enum and Access mapping
Replaces the prior trie-based lookup with direct pattern matching via EntityPath::resolve
Adds VertexType to classify GraphReadFilter vertex locals
Updates Postgres and Embedding statement placement to use the centralized resolution helper
Removes the old statement_placement::lookup module and migrates/expands unit tests under storage

Technical Notes: EntityPath::resolve returns both the resolved path and the number of projections consumed, and treats JSONB-backed paths as a storage boundary that permits arbitrary subpaths.

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

augmentcode

Review completed. 3 suggestions posted.

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

libs/@local/hashql/core/src/symbol/sym.rs

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

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/execution/vertex.rs

codecov · 2026-02-28T16:43:46Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 63.03%. Comparing base (f988588) to head (3d9cc9d).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8496      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   63.04%   63.03%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1303     1303              
  Lines      132813   132791      -22     
  Branches     5509     5507       -2     
==========================================
- Hits        83726    83709      -17     
+ Misses      48173    48170       -3     
+ Partials      914      912       -2

Flag	Coverage Δ
rust.hash-graph-api	`2.85% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-core	`82.29% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-eval	`69.13% <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 · 2026-02-28T16:44:33Z

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 68 untouched benchmarks
🗄️ 12 archived benchmarks run¹

_{Comparing bm/be-434-hashql-entity-path-resolution-and-storage-mapping (3d9cc9d) with main (f988588)}

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. ↩

cursor

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 2 potential issues.

^{Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with cloud agents, enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.}

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/execution/storage/entity.rs

github-actions · 2026-03-02T22:15:26Z

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	$$27.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 182 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.369 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.365 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 98.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.141 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$44.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 389 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.061 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$15.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 152 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.829 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$24.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 204 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.253 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 182 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.634 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.88 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.757 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.872 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.662 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.15 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.435 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.006 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 38.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.376 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.842 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.355 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.452 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.363 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.528 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.710 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.81 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.677 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.176 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.20 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.555 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.795 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.32 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.541 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.23 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.033 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.581 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$3.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.409 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.652 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.737 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.585 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.063 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.25 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.039 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.50 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.162 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$42.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 173 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.217 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$79.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 356 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.585 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$47.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 189 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.239 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$49.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 289 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.667 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$56.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 285 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.435 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$44.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 173 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.473 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$419 \mathrm{ms} \pm 946 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.842 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$94.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 531 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.885 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$88.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 383 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.441 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$287 \mathrm{ms} \pm 935 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.527 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$15.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 74.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.665 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$16.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 104 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.749 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$16.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 88.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.537 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$16.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 96.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.079 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$18.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 160 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.709 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$15.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.489 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$16.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 77.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.739 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$15.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.309 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$16.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 118 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.065 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$23.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 134 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.930 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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`	$$31.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 300 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.077 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1`	$$31.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 314 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.282 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1`	$$30.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 288 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.479 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1`	$$30.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 318 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.667 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2`	$$30.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 269 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.768 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1`	$$31.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 268 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.655 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1`	$$30.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 249 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.562 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1`	$$31.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 240 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.333 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1`	$$31.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 297 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.076 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: `bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba`	$$8.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 42.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.190 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$91.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 461 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.397 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$144 \mathrm{ms} \pm 612 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.802 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$97.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 580 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.992 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$106 \mathrm{ms} \pm 549 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.817 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$116 \mathrm{ms} \pm 641 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.787 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$122 \mathrm{ms} \pm 553 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.687 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$88.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 565 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.777 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$117 \mathrm{ms} \pm 655 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.341 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$95.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 537 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.146 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$103 \mathrm{ms} \pm 561 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.753 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$106 \mathrm{ms} \pm 688 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.065 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$106 \mathrm{ms} \pm 629 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.382 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$134 \mathrm{ms} \pm 668 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.422 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$135 \mathrm{ms} \pm 656 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.905 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$107 \mathrm{ms} \pm 553 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.575 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$578 \mathrm{ms} \pm 3.21 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-2.775 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

indietyp added 2 commits February 28, 2026 17:15

feat: convert EntityPath to bitset

c26debc

github-actions bot added area/libs Relates to first-party libraries/crates/packages (area) type/eng > backend Owned by the @backend team labels Feb 28, 2026

graphite-app bot assigned indietyp Feb 28, 2026

indietyp mentioned this pull request Feb 28, 2026

BE-427: Add hashql-macros crate with procedural macros for ID types and symbols #8495

Merged

3 tasks

vercel bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut February 28, 2026 16:41 View deployment

augmentcode bot reviewed Feb 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

libs/@local/hashql/core/src/symbol/sym.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

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

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/execution/vertex.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

vercel bot deployed to Preview – hash February 28, 2026 16:46 View deployment

cursor bot reviewed Feb 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/execution/storage/entity.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/execution/storage/entity.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

indietyp added 2 commits February 28, 2026 18:01

fix: suggestions from code review

eb36d9a

fix: suggestions from code review

3d9cc9d

vercel bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut February 28, 2026 17:05 View deployment

vercel bot deployed to Preview – hash February 28, 2026 17:10 View deployment

graphite-app bot requested review from a team February 28, 2026 17:24

Base automatically changed from bm/be-427-hashql-derive-macro-for-enum-based-id-types to main February 28, 2026 19:00

vercel bot requested a review from a team as a code owner February 28, 2026 19:00

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-434-hashql-entity-path-resolution-and-storage-mapping branch from 8c045d7 to 3d9cc9d Compare March 2, 2026 20:59

indietyp mentioned this pull request Mar 2, 2026

BE-428: HashQL: Simplify traversal tracking to path recording #8498

Open

3 tasks

vercel bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut March 2, 2026 21:02 View deployment

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview – hash March 2, 2026 21:36 Failure

Conversation

indietyp commented Feb 28, 2026

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

🔍 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!

cursor bot commented Feb 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

PR Summary

Uh oh!

vercel bot commented Feb 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

indietyp commented Feb 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

augmentcode bot commented Feb 28, 2026

Uh oh!

augmentcode bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Feb 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq bot commented Feb 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Merging this PR will not alter performance

Footnotes

Uh oh!

cursor bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 2, 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!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

cursor bot commented Feb 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

vercel bot commented Feb 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

indietyp commented Feb 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Feb 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codspeed-hq bot commented Feb 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading