SRE-988: Use affectedTasks instead of affectedPackages in Turborepo

[TimDiekmann]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

CI selects work from turbo's package graph (affectedPackages), which is built from manifests — so a TypeScript package that only consumes a crate's generated types had to declare that crate as an npm dependency just to be selected when the crate changes. Those manifest edges are removed; the relationship is modelled as a task dependency instead, and CI selects with affectedTasks. This unblocks separating the npm and Cargo worlds (SRE-984).

🔗 Related links

• SRE-988
• SRE-989 (follow-up: replace the ^build chain)

🚫 Blocked by

• SRE-986: Dissolve the graph type-defs crate into the graph API #9445

🔍 What does this change?

• turbo 2.6.3 → 2.10.12 (affectedTasks requires ≥ 2.9)
• JS → Rust workspace:* dependencies are removed; the TypeScript twins depend on the crate's build:types task and hash its output via inputs with mode: "dependencyOutputs"
• The codegen crates' build:types/build:wasm gained dependsOn: ["^build"]: affectedness and task hashes only travel along task edges, so without an upstream edge a change in a dependency crate neither re-runs the codegen nor invalidates its cache
• CI selection is shared in .github/scripts/affected-packages.sh: matrix entries carry one key per affected-and-defined task holding the selection reason, which each job echoes
• lint.yml gates its steps on those keys; the six per-job turbo run --dry-run existence probes are gone
• codegen:generate-openapi-specs is renamed to build:openapi

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:

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

⚠️ Known issues

• dependsOn: ["^build"] on the crates' codegen tasks implies real cargo builds once experimentalCargoWorkspaces maps build to Cargo. Acceptable for now: build is a no-op for crates today, and the lines carry TODO(SRE-989) so the chain is replaced before that migration continues.

🐾 Next steps

• SRE-989: replace the ^build chain with a build-free upstream dependency
• SRE-984: split the npm and Cargo workspaces

🛡 What tests cover this?

• The CI workflows on this PR exercise the selection end to end; each matrix job logs why it was selected

❓ How to test this?

1. Check out the branch and commit a change to a crate (e.g. error-stack)
2. Run .github/scripts/affected-packages.sh lint:tsc
3. Confirm downstream TypeScript packages (e.g. @apps/hash-frontend) appear with a TaskDependencyTaskChanged reason

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview	Aug 30, 2026 12:54pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview	Aug 30, 2026 12:54pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Aug 30, 2026 12:54pm
petrinaut-docs	Ready	Preview	Aug 30, 2026 12:54pm

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 98 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing t/sre-988-use-affectedtasks-instead-of-affectedpackages-in-turborepo (6c014b7) with t/sre-986-dissolve-the-graph-type-defs-crate-into-the-graph-api (88ba673)}

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Changes CI matrices, deploy/lint gating, Docker prune closures, and the monorepo task graph—incorrect affected or prune logic could skip jobs or ship broken images, though behavior is exercised by workflows on the PR.

Overview
CI and tooling now drive package selection from Turbo’s task graph instead of the package manifest graph, so TypeScript packages can react to Rust crate changes without fake workspace:* npm dependencies on @rust/* packages.

Turbo is bumped 2.6.3 → 2.10.12 (required for affectedTasks). New .github/scripts/affected-packages.sh runs turbo query with affectedTasks(base: HEAD^) and emits a GitHub Actions matrix with per-task keys and human-readable selection reasons; lint, test, bench, codspeed, and deploy workflows call it instead of inline affectedPackages queries. Matrix jobs log those reasons via a Show selection reason step, and lint gates each linter on matrix['lint:…'] instead of six turbo run --dry-run probes.

JS↔Rust coupling moves into turbo.json: codegen / build tasks use explicit dependsOn like @rust/hash-codec#build:types plus inputs with dependencyOutputs; corresponding package.json workspace deps on Rust twins are removed. Crate build:types / WASM tasks gain dependsOn: ["^build"] (with SRE-989 TODOs). Root build:types → ^build:types is dropped; lint:tsc no longer depends on build:types. codegen:generate-openapi-specs is renamed build:openapi.

Pruning follows task edges: prune.py and new prune-scopes.sh union package and task-graph dependencies; fixpoint_expand now pulls direct deps into scopes. App Dockerfiles run turbo prune $(prune-scopes.sh …) so cross-package dependsOn is included in image builds.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 6c014b7. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[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.

[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 6c014b7. 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	$$25.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 181 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.520 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.39 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.991 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$12.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.822 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$42.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 356 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.499 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 164 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.107 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$23.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 194 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.810 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$27.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 216 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.19 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.988 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 99.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.692 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.74 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.517 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.045 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$3.39 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 35.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.056 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.568 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.002 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.076 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.49 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.336 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.943 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.073 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.135 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.672 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.889 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.74 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.374 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.38 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.763 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.74 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.314 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$2.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.061 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.36 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.997 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.798 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.081 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.722 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.530 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.105 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$41.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 182 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.245 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$32.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 148 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.077 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$35.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 189 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.897 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$31.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 172 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.555 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$40.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 191 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.892 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$48.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 240 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.660 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$39.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 290 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.680 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$89.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 589 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.972 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$43.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 3.80 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}32.6 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$251 \mathrm{ms} \pm 944 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-15.409 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$10.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 70.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.259 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$10.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 54.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.368 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$10.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.962 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$10.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 54.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.193 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$10.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.056 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$10.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 70.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.821 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$10.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 66.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.980 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$10.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 61.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.754 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$10.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 60.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.878 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.980 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$10.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.031 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.331 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$10.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 53.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.707 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.124 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$10.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 70.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.989 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 83.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.355 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 60.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.341 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 61.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.39 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 53.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$55.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 516 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$109 \mathrm{ms} \pm 674 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$63.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 684 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$72.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 473 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$80.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 437 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.06 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$87.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 594 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$43.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 259 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.93 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$72.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 604 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$50.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 350 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.26 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$58.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 500 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.41 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$60.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 284 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.356 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$60.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 324 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.726 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$127 \mathrm{ms} \pm 539 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.989 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$139 \mathrm{ms} \pm 545 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.929 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$17.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 127 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.688 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$556 \mathrm{ms} \pm 954 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.769 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

[lunelson]

Nice! Makes a lot of sense