FE-627: Update tsgo/vite/rolldown + better React hooks linting in Petrinaut

[kube]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Update the Petrinaut frontend toolchain and linting after extracting the library.

This is just a temporary update to have React Hooks linting in Petrinaut and Refractive (the only packages using Oxlint at the moment), and is not meant to be the final config every package will have to use once we migrate all packages to Oxlint.

🔍 What does this change?

• Upgrades Petrinaut, Refractive, and the Petrinaut website dev tooling around tsgo, Vite, Rolldown, Oxlint, and related packages.
• Adds shared Oxlint config for React Hooks, React Compiler diagnostics, and React Refresh checks.
• Fixes Petrinaut React Hooks exhaustive-deps issues surfaced by the new config.
• Updates @apps/petrinaut-website main/app.tsx to keep one active document handle, persist localStorage metadata correctly, and hide the ephemeral default net from the Open menu.
• Updates @hashintel/petrinaut sdcpn-view.tsx to use useEffectEvent so the load-time fit reads the latest minZoom without refitting on every minZoom change.

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

This PR:

• modifies an npm-publishable library and I have added a changeset file(s)

📜 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

🐾 Next steps

• Follow up on React Refresh only-export-components refactors in Petrinaut.

🛡 What tests cover this?

• yarn fix:eslint
• yarn lint:tsc

❓ How to test this?

1. Check CI.
2. Run the Petrinaut lint/typecheck scripts locally.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 11, 2026 3:41pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 11, 2026 3:41pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 11, 2026 3:41pm

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Medium risk due to behavioral refactors in Petrinaut’s demo app net/handle lifecycle and the simulation timeline’s uPlot update flow, which could affect persistence, undo history, or chart rendering despite being mostly hook/lint-driven changes.

Overview
Adds shared Oxlint React Compiler/React Hooks lint config via .config/oxlint/react-compiler.json, and updates Petrinaut/Refractive/website .oxlintrc.json to extend it (removing per-package react-hooks/* overrides).

Upgrades frontend tooling across the Petrinaut website, @hashintel/petrinaut, and @hashintel/refractive (notably oxlint, oxlint-tsgolint, @typescript/native-preview, vite, plus rolldown/rolldown-plugin-dts and storybook in Petrinaut), with corresponding yarn.lock updates.

Fixes hook/lifecycle issues surfaced by stricter linting: refactors apps/petrinaut-website DevApp to maintain a single active PetrinautDocHandle (instead of per-net cached handles), introduces a default ephemeral net for display, and tightens localStorage syncing/cleanup when switching or creating nets.

Adjusts Petrinaut UI behavior and effects to stabilize dependencies and updates: scroll shadow calculation in VerticalSubViewsContainer, keyboard shortcut listener effect setup, SimulationTimeline uPlot data/update flow (dropping explicit revision prop and updating data based on store length/data changes), adds tabIndex={-1} to list rows for focus management, and uses useEffectEvent in SDCPNView for load-time fitView without refitting on every minZoom change.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 6e9bd3a. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: This PR updates Petrinaut’s frontend tooling stack and switches to more comprehensive React hooks linting via oxlint’s JS plugin integration.

Changes:

• Introduced a shared oxlint configuration for React Compiler + hooks rules (.config/oxlint/react-compiler.json) and extended it from Petrinaut-related packages.
• Upgraded oxlint, oxlint-tsgolint, and TypeScript’s native preview version in affected packages.
• Upgraded build/dev dependencies in @hashintel/petrinaut (e.g. Rolldown, Storybook, Vite) to newer releases.
• Adjusted multiple hooks/effects and callbacks across Petrinaut to satisfy stricter hooks linting and avoid unnecessary dependencies.
• Refined Simulation Timeline’s uPlot lifecycle/data wiring (removing explicit revision prop and syncing via derived data changes).
• Minor UI/a11y tweak: added tabIndex={-1} to list options in the filterable list subview.

Technical Notes: The new oxlint config disables the built-in React hooks rules and enables eslint-plugin-react-hooks via react-hooks-js, aiming for more precise dependency analysis while working with React 19 + React Compiler constraints.

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

[augmentcode]

Review completed. No suggestions at this time.

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

[cursor]

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

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

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit c23120f. Configure here.}

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 80 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing cf/fe-627-update-petrinaut-tech-stack-and-dev-tooling (6e9bd3a) with main (f8eae3a)¹}

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (926f9fa) during the generation of this report, so f8eae3a was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 62.29%. Comparing base (f8eae3a) to head (6e9bd3a).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8708   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   62.29%   62.29%           
=======================================
  Files        1353     1353           
  Lines      136575   136575           
  Branches     5788     5788           
=======================================
+ Hits        85085    85086    +1     
+ Misses      50582    50581    -1     
  Partials      908      908           

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.41% <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-backend-utils	2.81% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	9.63% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.87% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.21% <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-graph-api	2.52% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.34% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	26.38% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	37.76% <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-ast	87.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	29.63% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	82.38% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.43% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	69.13% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.06% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	92.45% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.06% <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.

[alex-e-leon]

Haven't run/tested the changes locally, but as far as I can tell from a quick skim it all looks good.

If you preferred not to include/write your own oxlint rule .json file for react-compiler though this project has all the eslint-recommended packs transformed for oxlint:
https://github.com/popup-plus/oxlint-config-presets

[kube]

Haven't run/tested the changes locally, but as far as I can tell from a quick skim it all looks good.

If you preferred not to include/write your own oxlint rule .json file for react-compiler though this project has all the eslint-recommended packs transformed for oxlint: https://github.com/popup-plus/oxlint-config-presets

@alex-e-leon Yeah would definitely be better to use existing configs.
I don't have the time to do these changes right now, as I know the choice of the preset will be subject to debate.

If you want to create a PR for this go ahead!

[alex-e-leon]

@alex-e-leon Yeah would definitely be better to use existing configs. I don't have the time to do these changes right now, as I know the choice of the preset will be subject to debate.

If you want to create a PR for this go ahead!

For eslint-plugin-react-hooks there's only really one preset option to choose from which is react-hooks/recommended so I think that should prevent any debate : ) (technically there is also react-hooks/recommended-latest but I think we can all agree we don't want to be guinea pigs for rules that are still experiments)

Happy to do it some time later as well though - totally understand if you don't have time to action right now - neither do I! : )

Latest approval commit 0b15f1c is not an ancestor of 6e9bd3a, indicating rewritten history after approval

[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	$$19.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.276 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$9.78 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.240 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$34.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 260 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.92 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.965 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$18.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 171 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.674 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$20.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 121 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.957 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.352 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$10.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.325 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$2.88 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.190 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 7.72 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.488 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$2.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.318 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$3.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.736 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.211 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$3.14 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.952 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$3.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.20 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.268 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$3.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.354 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.07 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.636 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$1.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 8.72 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.557 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.12 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.526 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.25 \mathrm{ms} \pm 8.49 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.167 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.041 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.473 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$2.32 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.171 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.09 \mathrm{ms} \pm 8.92 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.743 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.469 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$2.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.617 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.27 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.793 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$2.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.460 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$2.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.355 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.647 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$2.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.12 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.513 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$42.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 214 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.944 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$35.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 125 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.855 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$39.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 170 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.276 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$35.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 348 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$48.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 216 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.299 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$47.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 153 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.248 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$43.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 145 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.624 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$79.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 338 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.807 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$61.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 4.48 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}70.9 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$228 \mathrm{ms} \pm 648 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.588 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.013 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$15.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 67.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.147 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$15.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 65.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.358 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$14.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 60.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.745 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$19.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 97.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.05 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 58.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.536 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 85.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.837 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 86.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.848 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$15.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 75.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.520 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$20.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 130 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.388 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$25.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 167 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.514 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$26.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 232 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.599 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$26.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 193 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.324 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$27.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 201 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.885 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$26.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 201 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.469 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$26.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 200 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.368 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$26.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 231 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.239 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$27.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 181 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.90 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$26.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 201 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.925 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$6.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 36.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.354 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$70.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 315 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.336 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$113 \mathrm{ms} \pm 429 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.075 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$76.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 397 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.429 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$84.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 385 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.824 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$90.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 391 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.360 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$96.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 366 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.771 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$80.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 356 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.788 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$103 \mathrm{ms} \pm 429 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.581 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$85.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 364 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.480 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$92.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 327 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.030 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$93.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 400 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.428 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$93.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 437 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.504 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$147 \mathrm{ms} \pm 537 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.547 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$145 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.73 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.752 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$31.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 147 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.710 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$442 \mathrm{ms} \pm 602 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph