[perf experiment] Split the resolver tables into per-owner tables

[oli-obk]

r? @ghost

just doing some experiments to see if splitting hir_crate is feasible by checking if splitting the resolver's output into per-owner queries is feasible (#95004)

Basically necessary for #138705 as that can't be landed perf-wise while the hir_crate query is still a thing

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 33f5615 with merge 792af13...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 792af13 (792af13061770b940e351039beebe10bd97d4627)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (792af13): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.6%]	129
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.1%, 1.5%]	69
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.6%]	129

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.3%, secondary 0.5%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.3%	[0.9%, 1.7%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[1.0%, 2.8%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.4%, -1.6%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[0.9%, 1.7%]	5

Cycles

Results (secondary 1.5%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[1.5%, 2.6%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.7%, -1.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 777.548s -> 776.554s (-0.13%)
Artifact size: 365.81 MiB -> 365.80 MiB (-0.01%)

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit a16a6f1 with merge 66f172c...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 66f172c (66f172c845b537c43e7e41f92eaf99957253f6bd)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (66f172c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	29
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.3%, 2.1%]	30
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	29

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.6%, secondary 2.7%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.6%	[1.0%, 2.1%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.9%	[2.0%, 7.4%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-1.3%, -1.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.6%	[1.0%, 2.1%]	5

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.9%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.9%	[2.0%, 3.6%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 778.99s -> 777.791s (-0.15%)
Artifact size: 365.92 MiB -> 365.97 MiB (0.01%)

[oli-obk]

ok... better, but not great yet either