BE-71: HashQL: Consolidate AST special-form expansion stages into one

[indietyp]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

🏗️ This PR is large because it replaces three tightly coupled AST lowering passes with a single merged pass. Line breakdown: production code is +6295/-5451 (119 files); tests and snapshots are +2893/-2756 (692 files, mostly mechanical annotation updates due to changed diagnostic messages). The old passes (PreExpansionNameResolver, SpecialFormExpander, ImportResolver) share resolution state that the new Expander unifies, and the core module changes (universe-aware errors, KindSet, module depth, namespace .alias()) only exist to support the new pass. Splitting the core changes out would require backporting them to the old passes just to keep CI green before deleting those passes in the next PR. It is one logical change: merge three passes into one.

Replaces three AST lowering passes with a single Expander pass that resolves names, expands special forms, and resolves imports in one top-down traversal. This is the main deliverable of BE-71.

The old pipeline ran PreExpansionNameResolver, SpecialFormExpander, and ImportResolver sequentially, each walking the full AST. The new Expander does all three in a single walk, eliminating redundant traversals and making error recovery more coherent: diagnostics from nested expressions are no longer suppressed by early bail-outs in outer forms.

🔍 What does this change?

New Expander pass (hashql-ast/src/lower/expander/):

• Single visitor that resolves paths, expands special forms (let, type, newtype, fn, use, as, if, input, index, access), and resolves imports
• Each special form in its own file with a lower_* entry point
• visit() method encapsulates save/restore/trampoline cycle, returns Option<CurrentItem>
• CurrentItem { item, has_arguments } prevents aliasing of specialised references and guards intrinsic swallowing
• Zero-allocation path rewriting via rotate_right/rotate_left + zip
• Recovery over abort: invalid binding names use Ident::synthetic(sym::dummy) and continue collecting downstream diagnostics, returning Expr::dummy() only at the final gate
• 39 diagnostic categories with per-variant constructors, S-expression syntax in messages, three-tier spelling suggestions, cross-universe hints ("exists as a type, not a value")

Module system changes (hashql-core):

• KindSet bitfield (VALUE | TYPE | MODULE) for cross-universe error reporting
• ItemNotFound and ImportNotFound enriched with expected: Option<Universe> and found: KindSet
• Resolver scans for alternate-kind items when suggestions are enabled
• resolve_relative produces ModuleRequired instead of ModuleNotFound when a non-module import with the same name exists
• Module::depth as NonZero<u32> for ExactSizeIterator on absolute_path_rev
• ModuleNamespace::alias() for identity-preserving rebinding

Removed:

• PreExpansionNameResolver (~437 lines)
• SpecialFormExpander (~1451 lines + ~1125 lines of diagnostics)
• ImportResolver (~478 lines + ~712 lines of diagnostics)

Other:

• lowering module renamed to lower
• Compiletest suites rewired for the merged pass
• Path truncation support for future re-exports (canonical path shorter than written path)

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

⚠️ Known issues

• Path truncation for re-exports is implemented but untested: the intern_module debug assertion (item.module == containing_module) prevents constructing a re-export scenario in tests. Will be testable when re-export infrastructure lands.
• Ambiguous, ModuleEmpty, and InvalidQueryLength resolution error paths are unreachable from the expander (single-universe resolution, no empty modules in stdlib, parser never produces empty paths). Diagnostic constructors exist for completeness but have no compiletest coverage.

🐾 Next steps

• Diagnostic quality review pass
• Re-export module infrastructure (would enable testing path truncation)

🛡 What tests cover this?

• 557 compiletest UI tests, including 24 new tests for the expander:
  • Labeled argument rejection for all 9 special forms
  • Invalid binding names, invalid field access, invalid use paths
  • Intrinsic swallowing (let and type rebinding intrinsics)
  • Intrinsic type annotation errors
  • Generic arguments on intrinsics (both type and special form)
  • Cross-universe resolution ("cannot find value X" / "cannot find type X")
  • Duplicate generic constraints and duplicate use bindings
  • Package-not-found for nonexistent root packages
  • Multiple generic arguments on module path segments
• All existing inherited compiletest tests from the old passes continue to pass under the new expander suite

❓ How to test this?

cargo run -p hashql-compiletest --all-features -- run

[indietyp]

Warning

This pull request is not mergeable via GitHub because a downstack PR is open. Once all requirements are satisfied, merge this PR as a stack on Graphite.
Learn more

• BE-71: HashQL: Consolidate AST special-form expansion stages into one #8870 👈 (View in Graphite)
• BE-481: HashQL: Reify null and empty tuple as unit constants #8853
• BE-537, BE-537: hgraph: REST /hashql endpoint with E2E tests #8827
• BE-592: HashQL: Remove old eval graph path and core value types #8841
• BE-590: hgraph: Refactor entity query handlers into entity/query submodule #8840
• BE-587, BE-588: HashQL: Introduce CodeGenerationContext/CodeExecutionContext split and eval-stage Interner #8839
• BE-581, BE-589: HashQL: Introduce pass::lower/pass::place pipeline facades and fix cached constructor closure bug #8838
• BE-585, BE-591: HashQL: Add MIR interpreter test suite and refactor diagnostic categories #8837
• BE-583, BE-584, BE-586: HashQL: Add HeapPool, improve spans, and propagate Critical severity through diagnostics #8836
• BE-582: HashQL: Change opaque types from invariant to covariant #8835
• main

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

[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.}

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 22cabe3. Configure here.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 90.47788% with 269 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 57.68%. Comparing base (b8d767d) to head (a4c369d).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
libs/@local/hashql/ast/src/lower/expander/error.rs	85.04%	178 Missing and 14 partials ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/ast/src/lower/mod.rs	0.00%	50 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/ast/src/lower/expander/mod.rs	91.06%	16 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/ast/src/lower/expander/type.rs	99.37%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
libs/@local/graph/api/src/rest/hashql/compile.rs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
libs/@local/hashql/ast/src/lower/error.rs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...ibs/@local/hashql/ast/src/lower/expander/access.rs	98.80%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...l/hashql/ast/src/lower/type_extractor/translate.rs	83.33%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                                        Coverage Diff                                         @@
##           bm/be-481-hashql-lower-null-to-constantunit-during-reification    #8870      +/-   ##
==================================================================================================
- Coverage                                                           59.69%   57.68%   -2.01%     
==================================================================================================
  Files                                                                1229      765     -464     
  Lines                                                              123377    56360   -67017     
  Branches                                                             5461     3973    -1488     
==================================================================================================
- Hits                                                                73649    32514   -41135     
+ Misses                                                              48877    23462   -25415     
+ Partials                                                              851      384     -467     

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.39% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	0.00% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system	?
local.claude-hooks	?
local.harpc-client	?
local.hash-backend-utils	2.81% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	9.63% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	?
rust.error-stack	?
rust.harpc-codec	?
rust.harpc-net	?
rust.harpc-tower	?
rust.harpc-types	?
rust.harpc-wire-protocol	?
rust.hash-codec	?
rust.hash-graph-api	7.81% <0.00%> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	?
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	?
rust.hash-graph-store	?
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	?
rust.hash-graph-types	?
rust.hash-graph-validation	?
rust.hashql-ast	89.63% <90.50%> (+2.39%)	⬆️
rust.hashql-compiletest	28.40% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
rust.hashql-core	?
rust.hashql-diagnostics	?
rust.hashql-eval	79.44% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.09% <ø> (+0.02%)	⬆️
rust.hashql-mir	88.04% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.04% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will improve performance by 51.07%

⚡ 2 improved benchmarks
❌ 1 (👁 1) regressed benchmark
✅ 77 untouched benchmarks

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚡	runtime	58.9 ns	29.7 ns	+98.13%
⚡	constant	58.9 ns	29.7 ns	+98.13%
👁	unique[100]	25 µs	28.4 µs	-12.17%

Tip

Curious why this is faster? Comment @codspeedbot explain why this is faster on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing bm/be-71-hashql-consider-merging-ast-stages (a4c369d) with bm/be-481-hashql-lower-null-to-constantunit-during-reification (b8d767d)}

[Copilot]

Copilot wasn't able to review this pull request because it exceeds the maximum number of files (300). Try reducing the number of changed files and requesting a review from Copilot again.

[Copilot]

Copilot wasn't able to review this pull request because it exceeds the maximum number of files (300). Try reducing the number of changed files and requesting a review from Copilot again.

[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	$$27.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 222 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.962 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.775 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 108 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-11.936 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$43.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 402 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.976 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 122 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-14.259 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$24.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 211 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.311 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 225 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.890 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.70 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.845 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-11.684 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.456 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.494 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.924 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 44.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.314 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.325 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 36.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.178 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.900 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.075 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.19 \mathrm{ms} \pm 39.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.283 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.081 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.017 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.24 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.268 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.74 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.34 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.423 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.446 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.175 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.901 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.49 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.134 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.208 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.871 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.760 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.258 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.39 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.662 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$55.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 411 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.633 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$46.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 246 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.172 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$51.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 346 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.491 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$44.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 269 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.249 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$63.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 421 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$62.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 462 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$57.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 427 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.47 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$104 \mathrm{ms} \pm 553 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.81 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$56.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 3.65 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}22.3 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$299 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.28 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.956 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$19.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 135 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$20.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.06 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$20.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 131 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.914 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 137 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$25.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 172 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.323 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$19.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 123 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$19.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 108 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.90 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$20.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 119 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$21.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 165 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$27.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 214 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$34.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 325 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.277 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$35.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 387 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.183 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$36.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 326 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$35.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 293 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$36.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 308 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.04 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$35.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 334 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$34.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 374 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.464 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$35.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 296 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$34.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 393 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.946 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 56.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.601 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$96.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 727 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.077 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$151 \mathrm{ms} \pm 695 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.437 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$101 \mathrm{ms} \pm 524 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.327 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$113 \mathrm{ms} \pm 557 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.129 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$120 \mathrm{ms} \pm 935 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.040 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$131 \mathrm{ms} \pm 646 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.509 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 728 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.056 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$135 \mathrm{ms} \pm 850 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.223 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$115 \mathrm{ms} \pm 658 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.237 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$122 \mathrm{ms} \pm 755 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.511 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$123 \mathrm{ms} \pm 694 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.733 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$123 \mathrm{ms} \pm 751 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.656 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$157 \mathrm{ms} \pm 2.65 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}16.6 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$152 \mathrm{ms} \pm 819 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$42.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 255 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.103 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$555 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.61 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.783 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph