Update Rust crate nextest-filtering to 0.18.0

[hash-worker]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Type	Update	Change
nextest-filtering	workspace.dependencies	minor	0.17.0 -> 0.18.0

---

Warning

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

---

Release Notes

nextest-rs/nextest (nextest-filtering)

v0.18.0: nextest-filtering 0.18.0

Compare Source

Changed

• TestQuery::test_name is now a &TestCaseName instead of &str.

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "before 4am every weekday,every weekend" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 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.

[cursor]

PR Summary

Low Risk
Dependency-only change; primary risk is build/test behavior changes from the nextest-filtering minor upgrade and updated transitive crates (especially on Windows).

Overview
Bumps the workspace dependency nextest-filtering from 0.17.0 to 0.18.0.

Regenerates Cargo.lock, pulling in nextest-metadata 0.13.3 alongside the existing 0.12.x entry and updating several transitive Windows crates (notably windows-sys to 0.60.2 across multiple packages).

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 7ac4835. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Bumps the workspace Rust dependency nextest-filtering from 0.17.0 to 0.18.0.
Technical note: The 0.18.0 release changes TestQuery::test_name from &str to &TestCaseName, which may require updating downstream call sites.

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

[augmentcode]

Review completed. 1 suggestions posted.

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

[augmentcode]

nextest-filtering 0.18.0 changes TestQuery::test_name to &TestCaseName; libs/@local/hashql/compiletest/src/executor/trial.rs currently constructs TestQuery { test_name: &test_name }, which is likely to break with this bump. Consider ensuring that call site (and any similar ones) are updated as part of this version upgrade.

Other Locations

• libs/@local/hashql/compiletest/src/executor/trial.rs:132

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

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging this PR will create unknown performance changes

_{Comparing deps/rs/nextest-filtering-0.x (7ac4835) with main (3b21d31)}

Summary

⏩ 21 skipped benchmarks¹
🗄️ 12 archived benchmarks run²

Footnotes

1. 21 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

2. 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. ↩

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 60.11%. Comparing base (3b21d31) to head (7ac4835).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8314   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   60.10%   60.11%           
=======================================
  Files        1235     1235           
  Lines      118201   118201           
  Branches     5180     5180           
=======================================
+ Hits        71050    71051    +1     
+ Misses      46324    46323    -1     
  Partials      827      827           

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-graph-sdk	10.88% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.18% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️
rust.harpc-tower	66.80% <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	2.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.47% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	25.61% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	30.54% <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-core	81.77% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.43% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.05% <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.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Feb 3, 2026 11:05am
hashdotdesign	Ready	Preview, Comment	Feb 3, 2026 11:05am
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview, Comment	Feb 3, 2026 11:05am
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Feb 3, 2026 11:05am

[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	$$27.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 135 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.439 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.107 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 115 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.558 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$43.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 319 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.34 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 94.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.26 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$24.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 124 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.110 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$43.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 342 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.894 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$20.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 137 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.010 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$31.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 204 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.47 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.454 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.115 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.24 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.694 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.254 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$3.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.931 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.017 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.838 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.92 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.550 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 8.09 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.689 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.873 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.194 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.026 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.090 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$2.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.952 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.084 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.277 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.585 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.913 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$2.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.890 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.026 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.43 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$2.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.266 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$40.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 175 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.72 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$78.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 346 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.399 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$44.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 177 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.402 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$47.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 223 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.70 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$54.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 232 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.741 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$41.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 156 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$416 \mathrm{ms} \pm 794 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.190 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$97.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 405 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.391 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$86.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 388 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$320 \mathrm{ms} \pm 632 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.1 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$15.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.304 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$15.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.104 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$15.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 83.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.342 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$15.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.930 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$18.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 110 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.045 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$15.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 77.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$15.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$15.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.484 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$16.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.740 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$23.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 156 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.310 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$32.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 273 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.70 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$30.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 315 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.620 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$31.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 328 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.199 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$33.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 318 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.51 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$31.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 318 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.091 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$31.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 279 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.301 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$31.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 319 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.875 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$31.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 293 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.837 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$30.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 301 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.726 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 45.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.181 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$49.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 197 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.039 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$98.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 420 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.356 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$54.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 277 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.489 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$63.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 299 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.816 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$71.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 348 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.466 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$78.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 463 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.719 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$52.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 241 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.482 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$80.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 409 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.147 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$59.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 288 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.15 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$67.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 472 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.51 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$69.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 368 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.157 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$69.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 380 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.330 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$129 \mathrm{ms} \pm 379 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.508 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$129 \mathrm{ms} \pm 472 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.318 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 468 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}169 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$609 \mathrm{ms} \pm 3.67 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.421 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph