Update GitHub Action hashintel/.github to 7968be8

[hash-worker]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Type	Update	Change
hashintel/.github (changelog)	action	digest	d76c839 → 7968be8

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: (UTC)

• Branch creation
  • At any time (no schedule defined)
• Automerge
  • "before 4am every weekday,every weekend"

🚦 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 Mend Renovate.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview	Aug 3, 2026 2:49pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview	Aug 3, 2026 2:49pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Aug 3, 2026 2:49pm

[cursor]

PR Summary

Low Risk
Digest-only updates to reusable GitHub Actions workflows; no product code or security-sensitive logic in this repo’s diff.

Overview
Bumps the pinned digest for shared hashintel/.github reusable workflows from d76c839 to 7968be8 in three caller workflows.

Housekeeping (housekeeping.yml): the renovate job now references the updated housekeeping-dependencies.yml workflow.

Preflight (preflight.yml, preflight-todo-comments.yml): the PR title and todo-comment checks use the updated preflight-pr-title.yml and preflight-todo-comments.yml workflows respectively.

No application or runtime code changes—only CI wiring to the newer shared workflow revision.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 88e149e. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 59.57%. Comparing base (3f6e8a5) to head (88e149e).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9110      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   59.57%   59.57%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1413     1413              
  Lines      138053   138053              
  Branches     6510     6510              
==========================================
- Hits        82242    82240       -2     
- Misses      54769    54771       +2     
  Partials     1042     1042              

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.99% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	12.56% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system	40.84% <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	12.25% <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	96.19% <ø> (-0.04%)	⬇️
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	7.36% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.59% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-embeddings	91.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	29.66% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	42.16% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	47.95% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-validation	84.71% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-ast	89.63% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	28.39% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	78.98% <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)

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 degrade performance by 15.38%

⚠️ Different runtime environments detected

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

❌ 2 regressed benchmarks
✅ 96 untouched benchmarks

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	bit_matrix/dense/iter_row[64]	140.8 ns	170 ns	-17.16%
❌	bit_matrix/dense/iter_row[200]	185.8 ns	215 ns	-13.57%

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing deps/gha/hashintel-.github-digest (88e149e) with main (3f6e8a5)¹}

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (c15069f) during the generation of this report, so 3f6e8a5 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[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 ad6b73b. Configure here.}

[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	$$17.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 122 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.809 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.166 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$8.22 \mathrm{ms} \pm 49.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.932 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$25.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 180 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.95 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$8.15 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.209 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$15.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 525 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}11.6 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$18.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 125 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.112 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.92 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.457 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$9.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 83.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$2.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.20 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$1.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.04 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$2.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.77 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$3.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 37.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.57 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$2.64 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.88 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$3.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}12.6 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$2.53 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.427 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$1.64 \mathrm{ms} \pm 6.60 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.151 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$1.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 6.83 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.416 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$1.64 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.739 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$1.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.44 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$1.71 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.93 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$1.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$1.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.657 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$1.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$1.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$2.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.69 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 80.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$2.07 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.94 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.142 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$2.15 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.841 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$1.89 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$2.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.66 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.157 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$30.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 159 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$23.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 122 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.407 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$24.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 141 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.794 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$22.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 115 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$29.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 209 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$36.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 640 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.70 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$27.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 129 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$62.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 527 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$24.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 146 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.212 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$177 \mathrm{ms} \pm 891 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}18.8 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$7.71 \mathrm{ms} \pm 37.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$7.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.100 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$7.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.891 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$7.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.424 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$7.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 37.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.457 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$7.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 50.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.497 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$7.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 46.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.69 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$7.71 \mathrm{ms} \pm 35.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.580 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$8.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 53.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.941 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$8.09 \mathrm{ms} \pm 43.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.965 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$7.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 42.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.764 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$8.70 \mathrm{ms} \pm 65.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$8.25 \mathrm{ms} \pm 49.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$7.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 39.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.835 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$7.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 37.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.759 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$7.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.365 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$7.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 37.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.480 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$8.15 \mathrm{ms} \pm 51.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.969 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$7.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.921 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$6.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$47.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 291 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.38 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$85.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 469 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.714 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$51.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 421 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$59.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 393 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.80 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$65.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 401 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.356 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$71.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 515 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.046 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$30.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 202 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.68 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$50.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 355 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.443 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$34.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 230 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.650 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$41.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 302 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.487 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$41.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 247 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.846 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$40.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 189 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.276 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$86.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 655 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.2 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$90.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 419 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.44 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$12.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-16.556 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$373 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.76 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}11.2 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph