H-5881: Bump transitive Cargo dependencies

[TimDiekmann]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Update dependencies in Cargo.lock to their latest versions.

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

🛡 What tests cover this?

• Existing tests should cover these dependency updates

❓ How to test this?

1. Checkout the branch
2. Run the test suite to ensure all tests pass with the updated dependencies
3. Verify that the application functions as expected

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Review	Updated (UTC)
ds-theme	Error		Jan 23, 2026 8:41am
hashdotdesign	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jan 23, 2026 8:41am
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jan 23, 2026 8:41am

[cursor]

PR Summary

Broad dependency refresh limited to Cargo.lock.

• Updates many crates (AWS SDK S3/STS/SSO, Smithy runtime/types, tokio, tower 0.5.3, h2, rustls, url, indexmap, chrono, time, getrandom, windows-sys, js-sys/wasm-bindgen, etc.)
• Notable transitive shifts: socket2 → 0.6, lru → 0.16, crc-fast 1.9, and aws-smithy-observability added to multiple AWS crates
• No application/source code changes; build logic unchanged

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit d550e08. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[TimDiekmann]

• H-5881: Bump transitive Cargo dependencies #8260 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

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

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: This PR updates the repository’s Rust dependency lockfile to pick up newer transitive Cargo crate versions.

Changes:

• Updates Cargo.lock with newer crate resolutions across the dependency graph.
• Bumps multiple AWS-related crates (e.g., aws-sdk-s3, aws-smithy-*, aws-lc-*) to recent patch/minor releases.
• Updates widely-used runtime/network crates like tokio, tower, h2, socket2, and rustls.
• Refreshes supporting ecosystem crates (e.g., chrono, clap, url, indexmap, syn/proc-macro2).

Technical Notes: No source code changes are included; this is a lockfile-only update intended to keep builds reproducible while incorporating upstream fixes and compatibility updates. Running the existing Rust build/test suite should validate the new resolutions.

_{🤖 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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 60.22%. Comparing base (9e7860c) to head (d550e08).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8260   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   60.22%   60.22%           
=======================================
  Files        1231     1231           
  Lines      117944   117944           
  Branches     5126     5126           
=======================================
+ Hits        71031    71033    +2     
+ Misses      46087    46085    -2     
  Partials      826      826           

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.41% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	0.00% <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-graph-sdk	10.88% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.21% <ø> (+0.03%)	⬆️
rust.harpc-tower	66.80% <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	2.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.47% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	25.61% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	30.54% <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	87.25% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	46.65% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	81.77% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.43% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	68.54% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.10% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	88.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.05% <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.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging this PR will improve performance by 17.98%

_{Comparing t/h-5881-bump-transitive-cargo-dependencies (d550e08) with main (9e7860c)}

Summary

⚡ 4 improved benchmarks
✅ 14 untouched benchmarks
🗄️ 12 archived benchmarks run¹

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚡	foldable	9.7 µs	8.7 µs	+11.22%
⚡	complex	18.7 µs	16.2 µs	+15.22%
⚡	diamond	12.7 µs	10.7 µs	+17.98%
⚡	linear	7.9 µs	7.1 µs	+12.09%

Footnotes

1. 12 benchmarks were run, but are now archived. If they were deleted in another branch, consider rebasing to remove them from the report. Instead if they were added back, click here to restore them. ↩

[graphite-app]

Merge activity

• Jan 17, 6:20 PM UTC: This pull request can not be added to the Graphite merge queue. Please try rebasing and resubmitting to merge when ready.
• Jan 17, 6:20 PM UTC: Graphite disabled "merge when ready" on this PR due to: a merge conflict with the target branch; resolve the conflict and try again..

[graphite-app]

The crc package is being downgraded from version 3.4.0 to 3.3.0, which contradicts the PR's stated purpose of updating dependencies to their latest versions. This downgrade could:

1. Reintroduce bugs that were fixed in 3.4.0
2. Remove features or improvements from the newer version
3. Create version conflicts with other dependencies expecting 3.4.0 or newer

- version = "3.4.0"
+ version = "3.3.0"  # Should be >= 3.4.0

This needs to be corrected to ensure crc is at version 3.4.0 or newer.

Suggested change

	version = "3.3.0"
	source = "registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index"
	checksum = "5eb8a2a1cd12ab0d987a5d5e825195d372001a4094a0376319d5a0ad71c1ba0d"
	checksum = "9710d3b3739c2e349eb44fe848ad0b7c8cb1e42bd87ee49371df2f7acaf3e675"
	version = "3.4.0"
	source = "registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index"
	checksum = "9710d3b3739c2e349eb44fe848ad0b7c8cb1e42bd87ee49371df2f7acaf3e675"

Spotted by Graphite Agent



Is this helpful? React 👍 or 👎 to let us know.

[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.}

[cursor]

CRC crate downgraded contradicting update intention

Medium Severity

The crc crate is downgraded from version 3.4.0 to 3.3.0, contradicting the PR's stated goal of updating dependencies to their latest versions. This downgrade could reintroduce bugs or regressions that were fixed in 3.4.0, and may indicate an unintended dependency resolution conflict caused by updating crc-fast to 1.9.0.

 

[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	$$26.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 198 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.318 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.22 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.288 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$11.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 66.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.839 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$41.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 260 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.198 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 95.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.409 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$22.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 136 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.381 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$26.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 155 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-39.377 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-82.396 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 74.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-61.144 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.252 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.82 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.007 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.047 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.620 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.334 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$3.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.517 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.17 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.820 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.24 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.627 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$3.80 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.481 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.15 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.58 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.76 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.87 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.44 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.22 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$2.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.00 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.41 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.00 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.81 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.74 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.27 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.15 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.82 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.10 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$38.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 177 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.025 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$77.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 508 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$43.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 202 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.670 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$45.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 225 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.209 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$53.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 307 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$40.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 195 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.388 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$421 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.01 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}1.47 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$93.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 456 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.51 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$83.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 378 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.055 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$279 \mathrm{ms} \pm 779 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.127 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$14.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 66.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.650 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 87.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$15.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 84.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.889 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$14.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$17.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 88.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$14.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.619 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$14.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.507 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$14.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 77.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.049 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$15.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 86.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.634 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$21.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 134 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.171 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$29.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 288 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.215 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$30.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 385 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.609 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$30.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 265 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.779 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$28.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 301 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.963 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$30.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 280 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.389 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$30.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 278 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.56 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$29.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 296 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.241 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$29.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 260 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.354 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$30.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 236 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.226 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$7.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.246 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$45.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 229 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.603 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$92.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 382 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.238 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$51.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 230 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.938 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$59.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 395 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.655 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$67.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 336 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.235 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$73.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 373 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.541 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$49.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 338 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.959 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$76.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 419 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.058 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$56.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 282 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.300 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$63.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 341 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.077 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$65.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 357 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.227 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$65.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 319 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.222 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$127 \mathrm{ms} \pm 578 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.665 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$128 \mathrm{ms} \pm 448 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.371 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$39.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 146 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-61.346 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$577 \mathrm{ms} \pm 831 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.872 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph