break[array]: lazy compare function #6495

Performance Regression: -11.23%

⚡ 68 improved benchmarks
❌ 2 regressed benchmarks
✅ 1065 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 1268 skipped benchmarks¹

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

	Mode	Benchmark	`BASE`	`HEAD`	Efficiency
⚡	Simulation	`compare_int`	141,374.1 µs	5.9 µs	×24,000
⚡	Simulation	`compare_bool`	188,929.9 µs	5.7 µs	×33,000
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_primitive[(10000, 2)]`	156.5 µs	7.1 µs	×22
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_primitive[(10000, 2048)]`	215.6 µs	7.1 µs	×31
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_primitive[(10000, 128)]`	160.3 µs	7.1 µs	×23
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_primitive[(10000, 32)]`	157.3 µs	7.1 µs	×22
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_primitive[(100000, 128)]`	798.2 µs	7 µs	×110
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_primitive[(10000, 512)]`	175.5 µs	7.1 µs	×25
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_primitive[(100000, 2)]`	794.1 µs	7.1 µs	×110
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_primitive[(10000, 8)]`	155.8 µs	7.6 µs	×20
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_primitive[(100000, 4)]`	793.8 µs	7 µs	×110
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_primitive[(100000, 2048)]`	897.4 µs	7.1 µs	×130
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_primitive[(10000, 4)]`	155.7 µs	7.1 µs	×22
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_primitive[(100000, 8)]`	794 µs	7.6 µs	×100
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_primitive[(100000, 32)]`	795.3 µs	7.1 µs	×110
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_primitive[(100000, 512)]`	856.3 µs	7.1 µs	×120
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_varbin[(10000, 32)]`	164.4 µs	8.4 µs	×20
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_varbin[(10000, 2)]`	162.2 µs	8.5 µs	×19
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_varbin[(10000, 4)]`	162.2 µs	8.6 µs	×19
⚡	Simulation	`bench_compare_varbin[(10000, 2048)]`	310 µs	8.6 µs	×36
...	...	...	...	...	...

ℹ️ Only the first 20 benchmarks are displayed. Go to the app to view all benchmarks.

_{Comparing ji/lazy-compare (19fe543) with develop (e18f6c5)²}

1268 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩
No successful run was found on develop (66b85b7) during the generation of this report, so e18f6c5 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩