perf: add application workflow benchmark results

README.md

@@ -468,8 +468,12 @@ BenchmarkDotNet guidance is documented in [docs/guides/benchmarks.md](docs/guide
 | Ambassador | Execution | 87.92 ns | 624 B | 93.72 ns | 624 B | Same allocation; fluent was slightly faster in this path. |
 | Cache-Aside | Construction | 19.91 ns | 200 B | 19.85 ns | 200 B | Effectively equivalent for this microbenchmark. |
 | Cache-Aside | Execution | 216.50 ns | 1,048 B | 208.60 ns | 1,048 B | Same allocation; generated was slightly faster for the miss-then-hit workflow. |
+| Data Mapper | Construction | 40.56 ns | 288 B | 12.87 ns | 112 B | Generated reduced construction time and allocation in this microbenchmark. |
+| Data Mapper | Execution | 188.09 ns | 1,104 B | 97.71 ns | 672 B | Generated reduced execution time and allocation for the map-store-load workflow. |
 | Leader Election | Construction | 14.28 ns | 104 B | 15.91 ns | 104 B | Same allocation; fluent was slightly faster in this microbenchmark. |
 | Leader Election | Execution | 43.62 ns | 360 B | 144.37 ns | 312 B | Generated allocated about 13% less memory, while fluent was faster in this path. |
+| Materialized View | Construction | 140.9 ns | 1.05 KB | 147.4 ns | 1.05 KB | Same allocation; fluent was slightly faster in this microbenchmark. |
+| Materialized View | Execution | 389.5 ns | 2.02 KB | 386.0 ns | 2.02 KB | Effectively equivalent for this scenario. |
 | Message Routing | Construction | 23.42 ns | 224 B | 23.33 ns | 224 B | Effectively equivalent for this microbenchmark. |
 | Message Routing | Execution | 707.34 ns | 4,744 B | 679.97 ns | 4,632 B | Generated reduced execution time and allocation for the route/split/aggregate workflow. |
 | Message Translator | Construction | 39.49 ns | 424 B | 39.65 ns | 424 B | Effectively equivalent for this microbenchmark. |
@@ -488,6 +492,8 @@ BenchmarkDotNet guidance is documented in [docs/guides/benchmarks.md](docs/guide
 | Specification | Execution | 111.25 ns | 344 B | 93.30 ns | 344 B | Same allocation; generated was faster for loan-application evaluation. |
 | Table Data Gateway | Construction | 9.740 ns | 120 B | 9.698 ns | 120 B | Effectively equivalent for this microbenchmark. |
 | Table Data Gateway | Execution | 90.51 ns | 600 B | 96.35 ns | 600 B | Same allocation; fluent was slightly faster for the insert-update-query workflow. |
+| Unit Of Work | Construction | 49.50 ns | 304 B | 46.91 ns | 304 B | Same allocation; generated was slightly faster in this microbenchmark. |
+| Unit Of Work | Execution | 121.03 ns | 824 B | 96.91 ns | 520 B | Generated reduced execution time and allocation for the checkout commit workflow. |
 
 Run the benchmarks on target hardware before making final route decisions:
 

benchmarks/PatternKit.Benchmarks/Application/DataMapperBenchmarks.cs

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+using BenchmarkDotNet.Attributes;
+using PatternKit.Application.DataMapping;
+using PatternKit.Examples.DataMapperDemo;
+
+namespace PatternKit.Benchmarks.Application;
+
+[BenchmarkCategory("ApplicationArchitecture", "DataMapper")]
+public class DataMapperBenchmarks
+{
+    [Benchmark(Baseline = true, Description = "Fluent: create data mapper")]
+    [BenchmarkCategory("Fluent", "Construction")]
+    public DataMapper<OrderAggregate, OrderRow> Fluent_CreateMapper()
+        => OrderDataMapperPolicies.CreateFluentMapper();
+
+    [Benchmark(Description = "Generated: create data mapper")]
+    [BenchmarkCategory("Generated", "Construction")]
+    public IDataMapper<OrderAggregate, OrderRow> Generated_CreateMapper()
+        => GeneratedOrderDataMapper.CreateMapper();
+
+    [Benchmark(Description = "Fluent: map store and load order")]
+    [BenchmarkCategory("Fluent", "Execution")]
+    public ValueTask<OrderDataMapperSummary> Fluent_MapStoreAndLoadOrder()
+        => OrderDataMapperDemo.RunFluentAsync();
+
+    [Benchmark(Description = "Generated: map store and load order")]
+    [BenchmarkCategory("Generated", "Execution")]
+    public ValueTask<OrderDataMapperSummary> Generated_MapStoreAndLoadOrder()
+        => OrderDataMapperDemo.RunGeneratedAsync();
+}

benchmarks/PatternKit.Benchmarks/Application/MaterializedViewBenchmarks.cs

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+using BenchmarkDotNet.Attributes;
+using PatternKit.Application.MaterializedViews;
+using PatternKit.Examples.MaterializedViewDemo;
+
+namespace PatternKit.Benchmarks.Application;
+
+[BenchmarkCategory("ApplicationArchitecture", "MaterializedView")]
+public class MaterializedViewBenchmarks
+{
+    [Benchmark(Baseline = true, Description = "Fluent: create materialized view")]
+    [BenchmarkCategory("Fluent", "Construction")]
+    public MaterializedView<OrderReadModel, OrderReadModelEvent> Fluent_CreateView()
+        => OrderMaterializedViewPolicies.CreateFluentView();
+
+    [Benchmark(Description = "Generated: create materialized view")]
+    [BenchmarkCategory("Generated", "Construction")]
+    public IMaterializedView<OrderReadModel, OrderReadModelEvent> Generated_CreateView()
+        => GeneratedOrderMaterializedView.CreateView();
+
+    [Benchmark(Description = "Fluent: project order read model")]
+    [BenchmarkCategory("Fluent", "Execution")]
+    public ValueTask<OrderMaterializedViewSummary> Fluent_ProjectOrderReadModel()
+        => OrderMaterializedViewDemo.RunFluentAsync();
+
+    [Benchmark(Description = "Generated: project order read model")]
+    [BenchmarkCategory("Generated", "Execution")]
+    public ValueTask<OrderMaterializedViewSummary> Generated_ProjectOrderReadModel()
+        => OrderMaterializedViewDemo.RunGeneratedAsync();
+}

benchmarks/PatternKit.Benchmarks/Application/UnitOfWorkBenchmarks.cs

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+using BenchmarkDotNet.Attributes;
+using PatternKit.Application.UnitOfWork;
+using PatternKit.Examples.UnitOfWorkDemo;
+
+namespace PatternKit.Benchmarks.Application;
+
+[BenchmarkCategory("ApplicationArchitecture", "UnitOfWork")]
+public class UnitOfWorkBenchmarks
+{
+    [Benchmark(Baseline = true, Description = "Fluent: create unit of work")]
+    [BenchmarkCategory("Fluent", "Construction")]
+    public UnitOfWork Fluent_CreateUnitOfWork()
+        => UnitOfWork.Create()
+            .Enlist("reserve-inventory", static _ => default, static _ => default)
+            .Enlist("capture-payment", static _ => default, static _ => default)
+            .Build();
+
+    [Benchmark(Description = "Generated: create unit of work")]
+    [BenchmarkCategory("Generated", "Construction")]
+    public UnitOfWork Generated_CreateUnitOfWork()
+        => GeneratedCheckoutUnitOfWork.Create();
+
+    [Benchmark(Description = "Fluent: commit checkout unit")]
+    [BenchmarkCategory("Fluent", "Execution")]
+    public ValueTask<CheckoutUnitOfWorkSummary> Fluent_CommitCheckoutUnit()
+        => CheckoutUnitOfWorkDemo.RunFluentAsync();
+
+    [Benchmark(Description = "Generated: commit checkout unit")]
+    [BenchmarkCategory("Generated", "Execution")]
+    public ValueTask<CheckoutUnitOfWorkSummary> Generated_CommitCheckoutUnit()
+        => CheckoutUnitOfWorkDemo.RunGeneratedAsync();
+}

docs/guides/benchmark-results.md

@@ -15,8 +15,12 @@ The latest measured timings below were captured on Windows 11, Intel Core i9-149
 | Ambassador | Execution | 87.92 ns | 624 B | 93.72 ns | 624 B | Same allocation; fluent was slightly faster in this path. |
 | Cache-Aside | Construction | 19.91 ns | 200 B | 19.85 ns | 200 B | Effectively equivalent for this microbenchmark. |
 | Cache-Aside | Execution | 216.50 ns | 1,048 B | 208.60 ns | 1,048 B | Same allocation; generated was slightly faster for the miss-then-hit workflow. |
+| Data Mapper | Construction | 40.56 ns | 288 B | 12.87 ns | 112 B | Generated reduced construction time and allocation in this microbenchmark. |
+| Data Mapper | Execution | 188.09 ns | 1,104 B | 97.71 ns | 672 B | Generated reduced execution time and allocation for the map-store-load workflow. |
 | Leader Election | Construction | 14.28 ns | 104 B | 15.91 ns | 104 B | Same allocation; fluent was slightly faster in this microbenchmark. |
 | Leader Election | Execution | 43.62 ns | 360 B | 144.37 ns | 312 B | Generated allocated about 13% less memory, while fluent was faster in this path. |
+| Materialized View | Construction | 140.9 ns | 1.05 KB | 147.4 ns | 1.05 KB | Same allocation; fluent was slightly faster in this microbenchmark. |
+| Materialized View | Execution | 389.5 ns | 2.02 KB | 386.0 ns | 2.02 KB | Effectively equivalent for this scenario. |
 | Message Routing | Construction | 23.42 ns | 224 B | 23.33 ns | 224 B | Effectively equivalent for this microbenchmark. |
 | Message Routing | Execution | 707.34 ns | 4,744 B | 679.97 ns | 4,632 B | Generated reduced execution time and allocation for the route/split/aggregate workflow. |
 | Message Translator | Construction | 39.49 ns | 424 B | 39.65 ns | 424 B | Effectively equivalent for this microbenchmark. |
@@ -35,6 +39,8 @@ The latest measured timings below were captured on Windows 11, Intel Core i9-149
 | Specification | Execution | 111.25 ns | 344 B | 93.30 ns | 344 B | Same allocation; generated was faster for loan-application evaluation. |
 | Table Data Gateway | Construction | 9.740 ns | 120 B | 9.698 ns | 120 B | Effectively equivalent for this microbenchmark. |
 | Table Data Gateway | Execution | 90.51 ns | 600 B | 96.35 ns | 600 B | Same allocation; fluent was slightly faster for the insert-update-query workflow. |
+| Unit Of Work | Construction | 49.50 ns | 304 B | 46.91 ns | 304 B | Same allocation; generated was slightly faster in this microbenchmark. |
+| Unit Of Work | Execution | 121.03 ns | 824 B | 96.91 ns | 520 B | Generated reduced execution time and allocation for the checkout commit workflow. |
 
 ## Coverage Matrix Summary
 

docs/guides/benchmarks.md

@@ -32,8 +32,12 @@ The following numbers were captured on Windows 11, Intel Core i9-14900K, .NET SD
 | Ambassador | Execution | 87.92 ns | 624 B | 93.72 ns | 624 B | Same allocation; fluent was slightly faster in this path. |
 | Cache-Aside | Construction | 19.91 ns | 200 B | 19.85 ns | 200 B | Effectively equivalent for this microbenchmark. |
 | Cache-Aside | Execution | 216.50 ns | 1,048 B | 208.60 ns | 1,048 B | Same allocation; generated was slightly faster for the miss-then-hit workflow. |
+| Data Mapper | Construction | 40.56 ns | 288 B | 12.87 ns | 112 B | Generated reduced construction time and allocation in this microbenchmark. |
+| Data Mapper | Execution | 188.09 ns | 1,104 B | 97.71 ns | 672 B | Generated reduced execution time and allocation for the map-store-load workflow. |
 | Leader Election | Construction | 14.28 ns | 104 B | 15.91 ns | 104 B | Same allocation; fluent was slightly faster in this microbenchmark. |
 | Leader Election | Execution | 43.62 ns | 360 B | 144.37 ns | 312 B | Generated allocated about 13% less memory, while fluent was faster in this path. |
+| Materialized View | Construction | 140.9 ns | 1.05 KB | 147.4 ns | 1.05 KB | Same allocation; fluent was slightly faster in this microbenchmark. |
+| Materialized View | Execution | 389.5 ns | 2.02 KB | 386.0 ns | 2.02 KB | Effectively equivalent for this scenario. |
 | Message Routing | Construction | 23.42 ns | 224 B | 23.33 ns | 224 B | Effectively equivalent for this microbenchmark. |
 | Message Routing | Execution | 707.34 ns | 4,744 B | 679.97 ns | 4,632 B | Generated reduced execution time and allocation for the route/split/aggregate workflow. |
 | Message Translator | Construction | 39.49 ns | 424 B | 39.65 ns | 424 B | Effectively equivalent for this microbenchmark. |
@@ -52,6 +56,8 @@ The following numbers were captured on Windows 11, Intel Core i9-14900K, .NET SD
 | Specification | Execution | 111.25 ns | 344 B | 93.30 ns | 344 B | Same allocation; generated was faster for loan-application evaluation. |
 | Table Data Gateway | Construction | 9.740 ns | 120 B | 9.698 ns | 120 B | Effectively equivalent for this microbenchmark. |
 | Table Data Gateway | Execution | 90.51 ns | 600 B | 96.35 ns | 600 B | Same allocation; fluent was slightly faster for the insert-update-query workflow. |
+| Unit Of Work | Construction | 49.50 ns | 304 B | 46.91 ns | 304 B | Same allocation; generated was slightly faster in this microbenchmark. |
+| Unit Of Work | Execution | 121.03 ns | 824 B | 96.91 ns | 520 B | Generated reduced execution time and allocation for the checkout commit workflow. |
 
 The coverage matrix is separate from the scenario timings. Matrix benchmarks prove every catalog pattern and every generator source file has a reportable BenchmarkDotNet route; pattern-specific scenario benchmarks provide the fluent-vs-generated construction and execution numbers shown above. See [Benchmark Results](benchmark-results.md) for the full pattern and generator matrix.