BE-853: Add the initial problematic crate

[TimDiekmann]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Add problematic as the shared Rust data model for HTTP Problem Details in the public Graph API. Applications can define reusable problem metadata and serialize individual occurrences with typed extension members. Invalid extension shapes and collisions with standard member names return a Serde error.

🔗 Related links

• BE-853: Add the initial problematic crate (internal)
• BE-353: Design and implement an Error Model for cross-API communication (internal)

🚫 Blocked by

No prerequisites.

🔍 What does this change?

• Add public ProblemType metadata, ProblemDetails<'a, E>, and NoExtensions. Re-export http::StatusCode for problem definitions.
• Use Cow for problem strings. Deserialization borrows unescaped strings from string or byte-slice input and owns strings when borrowing is unavailable.
• Flatten extension members into the document. The serializer rejects non-object extensions and top-level type, title, status, detail, or instance members. These names remain valid in nested objects. The object check also rejects serde_json::Number when arbitrary_precision is enabled.
• Provide independent, optional serde and schemars features, with no default features. Generated schemas include field descriptions, examples, URI-reference annotations, and the about:blank default for an omitted type.
• Organize the crate under libs/problematic/rust with integration tests, JSON snapshot files, licenses, Rustdoc, and Cargo/Turborepo configuration. Enable http/std in the workspace dependency and remove redundant per-crate declarations.

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

This PR:

• modifies a Cargo-publishable library, but it is not yet ready to publish

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

The changes in this PR:

• require changes to docs which are made as part of this PR

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

The changes in this PR:

• affected the execution graph, and the turbo.json's have been updated to reflect this

The crate uses the existing lint:clippy and test:unit tasks, with generated workspace wiring and task-dependency documentation.

⚠️ Known issues

The crate is an initial draft at version 0.0.0 and is not ready for publication.

🐾 Next steps

Implement HTTP responses, handler and middleware integration, and OpenAPI registration under BE-353.

🛡 What tests cover this?

With both features enabled, 29 integration tests cover typed extension roundtrips, borrowed and owned strings, omitted and invalid fields, extension validation, map-key serialization, and error propagation. The tests enable serde_json/arbitrary_precision to exercise its number representation, including numbers inside valid extension objects. JSON snapshots cover the base schema and a schema with typed extensions; a separate test checks the required members for serialization and deserialization. A doc-test covers static problem metadata.

❓ How to test this?

cargo check --package problematic --no-default-features
cargo nextest run --package problematic --features serde
cargo nextest run --package problematic --features schemars
cargo nextest run --package problematic --all-features
cargo test --package problematic --all-features --doc
cargo clippy --package problematic --all-features --all-targets --no-deps
cargo doc --package problematic --all-features --no-deps

📹 Demo

The generated schemas are available as .snap.json files under libs/problematic/rust/tests/snapshots.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
hash	Ready	Preview	Sep 16, 2026 10:10am UTC
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview	Sep 16, 2026 10:10am UTC
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Sep 16, 2026 10:10am UTC
petrinaut-docs	Ready	Preview	Sep 16, 2026 10:10am UTC

[github-advanced-security]

You are seeing this message because GitHub Code Scanning has recently been set up for this repository, or this pull request contains the workflow file for the Code Scanning tool.

What Enabling Code Scanning Means:

• The 'Security' tab will display more code scanning analysis results (e.g., for the default branch).
• Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results.
• You will be able to see the analysis results for the pull request's branch on this overview once the scans have completed and the checks have passed.

For more information about GitHub Code Scanning, check out the documentation.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 63.05221% with 92 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 65.89%. Comparing base (fb728e4) to head (adf0444).
⚠️ Report is 70 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...bs/problematic/rust/src/serde/serialization/key.rs	27.27%	72 Missing ⚠️
...bs/problematic/rust/src/serde/serialization/mod.rs	85.91%	20 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9683      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   65.90%   65.89%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1887     1891       +4     
  Lines      198443   198692     +249     
  Branches     8248     8249       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits       130774   130932     +158     
- Misses      66139    66230      +91     
  Partials     1530     1530              

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.99% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	15.35% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-graph	12.54% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system	38.15% <ø> (ø)
local.claude-hooks	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client	51.49% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-backend-utils	3.27% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	10.02% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	12.22% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	2.36% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.81% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.24% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️
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-config	81.14% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-api	19.71% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-atlas	80.36% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authentication	96.02% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	63.14% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-embeddings	91.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	32.15% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	48.41% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	50.18% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-validation	84.71% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-middleware	90.92% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-ast	89.63% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	28.39% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	78.92% <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)
rust.problematic	63.05% <63.05%> (?)

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]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

⚠️ 6 benchmarks measured no execution time

Nothing ran under measurement, usually because the compiler removed the code under test. These results are not comparable, so they count as unchanged.

Preventing compiler optimizations

✅ 98 untouched benchmarks

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚠️	as_constant	< 1 ns	< 1 ns	N/A
⚠️	constant_equal	< 1 ns	< 1 ns	N/A
⚠️	constant_not_equal	< 1 ns	< 1 ns	N/A
⚠️	access	< 1 ns	< 1 ns	N/A
⚠️	runtime_equal	< 1 ns	< 1 ns	N/A
⚠️	runtime_not_equal	< 1 ns	< 1 ns	N/A

---

_{Comparing t/be-853-add-the-initial-problematic-crate (5727eeb) with main (5af427b)¹}

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (c3c24bd) during the generation of this report, so 5af427b was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[cursor]

PR Summary

Low Risk
Adds a new standalone library and minor workspace http feature consolidation; no production API error paths are wired up in this PR.

Overview
Introduces the new problematic workspace crate as the shared Rust model for RFC 9457 HTTP Problem Details, aimed at the public Graph API error model.

The crate exposes ProblemType for reusable metadata and ProblemDetails<'a, E> for individual occurrences with typed, flattened extension members, plus NoExtensions and a re-export of http::StatusCode. Optional serde and schemars features (none on by default) add JSON round-trips—with Cow borrowing where possible—and JSON Schema generation with field docs and defaults such as about:blank for omitted type. Extension serialization is guarded: extensions must be objects, cannot use top-level reserved names (type, title, status, detail, instance), and invalid shapes fail at serialize time.

Workspace wiring registers libs/problematic/rust, adds a problematic path dependency, enables http/std once at the workspace level (dropping duplicate features = ["std"] on hash-graph-authentication and hash-middleware), and includes Turborepo/@rust/problematic task metadata. The change is library-only—no handler or middleware integration yet—with broad integration tests and schema snapshots.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 5727eeb. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

[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	$$25.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 215 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.367 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.96 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$12.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 106 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.490 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$43.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 307 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.984 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 114 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.466 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$24.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 227 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.191 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$26.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 177 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.042 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.72 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.548 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 92.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-14.222 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.375 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$3.36 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.85 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.343 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.58 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.302 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.189 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.44 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.05 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.55 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.74 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.52 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.443 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.80 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.39 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.03 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.029 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.781 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.13 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.000 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.17 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.43 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.89 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.18 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.03 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.97 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.237 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.05 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.84 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.461 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.15 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.40 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$32.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 259 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.977 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$68.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 361 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.338 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$34.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 205 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.284 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$38.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 243 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.923 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$41.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 240 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.693 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$32.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 190 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.201 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$393 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.16 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-3.772 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$85.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 618 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.546 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$71.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 478 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.077 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$300 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.27 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}8.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$10.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 128 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.144 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$10.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 53.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.281 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$10.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.956 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$10.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.840 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$10.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.841 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$10.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.039 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$10.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.110 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$10.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 85.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.075 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$10.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 72.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.011 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.064 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 62.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.327 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.361 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.311 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$10.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 66.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.682 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.687 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 97.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.661 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 102 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.953 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 84.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.440 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.434 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$7.87 \mathrm{ms} \pm 59.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.851 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$57.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 481 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.171 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$108 \mathrm{ms} \pm 961 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.446 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$64.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 462 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.854 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$73.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 888 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.006 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$79.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 542 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.847 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$85.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 571 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.052 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$45.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 318 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.204 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$73.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 431 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.691 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$52.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 358 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.061 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$60.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 474 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.611 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$64.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 531 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.603 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$62.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 460 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.135 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$116 \mathrm{ms} \pm 519 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$127 \mathrm{ms} \pm 510 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$22.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 168 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.074 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$528 \mathrm{ms} \pm 898 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.426 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph