Update Rust crate rand to v0.9.4 [SECURITY]

[hash-worker]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Type	Update	Change
rand (source)	workspace.dependencies	patch	0.9.3 -> 0.9.4

---

Warning

Some dependencies could not be looked up. Check the Dependency Dashboard for more information.

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

GHSA-cq8v-f236-94qc

It has been reported (by @​lopopolo) that the rand library is unsound (i.e. that safe code using the public API can cause Undefined Behaviour) when all the following conditions are met:

• The log and thread_rng features are enabled
• A custom logger is defined
• The custom logger accesses rand::rng() (previously rand::thread_rng()) and calls any TryRng (previously RngCore) methods on ThreadRng
• The ThreadRng (attempts to) reseed while called from the custom logger (this happens every 64 kB of generated data)
• Trace-level logging is enabled or warn-level logging is enabled and the random source (the getrandom crate) is unable to provide a new seed

TryRng (previously RngCore) methods for ThreadRng use unsafe code to cast *mut BlockRng<ReseedingCore> to &mut BlockRng<ReseedingCore>. When all the above conditions are met this results in an aliased mutable reference, violating the Stacked Borrows rules. Miri is able to detect this violation in sample code. Since construction of aliased mutable references is Undefined Behaviour, the behaviour of optimized builds is hard to predict.

Affected versions of rand are >= 0.7, < 0.9.3 and 0.10.0.

---

Release Notes

rust-random/rand (rand)

v0.9.4

Compare Source

Fixes

• Fix doc build (#​1766)

Full Changelog: rust-random/rand@0.9.3...0.9.4

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "" (UTC), Automerge - "before 4am every weekday,every weekend" (UTC).

🚦 Automerge: Enabled.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR has been generated by Renovate Bot.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Apr 15, 2026 0:11am
hashdotdesign	Ready	Preview, Comment	Apr 15, 2026 0:11am
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview, Comment	Apr 15, 2026 0:11am
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Apr 15, 2026 0:11am

[cursor]

PR Summary

Low Risk
Low risk dependency patch bump; changes are limited to the lockfile, with potential impact only where rand behavior/UB fixes affect runtime randomness or logging edge-cases.

Overview
Pulls in rand 0.9.4 (from 0.9.3) by updating Cargo.lock, and updates all transitive rand references in dependent crates to resolve to the new patch version.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 4ed46ab. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Updates the Rust workspace to use rand v0.9.4 (patch release) as resolved in the lockfile.

Changes:

• Bumps the locked rand version from 0.9.3 to 0.9.4 via Cargo.lock
• Intended to keep dependencies current in response to Renovate / security alert context

Technical Notes: This is a lockfile-only change (no source changes); ensure CI/builds run with --locked and that the GHSA is fully cleared (i.e., no other vulnerable rand versions remain resolved transitively).

_{🤖 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.

[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.}

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit cc4f66c. Configure here.}

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 80 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing deps/rs/crate-rand-vulnerability (4ed46ab) with main (efbcf7c)}

See the output of git range-diff at https://github.com/hashintel/hash/actions/runs/24453254706

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 62.49%. Comparing base (efbcf7c) to head (4ed46ab).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8631   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   62.49%   62.49%           
=======================================
  Files        1318     1318           
  Lines      134234   134234           
  Branches     5520     5520           
=======================================
+ Hits        83893    83895    +2     
+ Misses      49426    49424    -2     
  Partials      915      915           

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.40% <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	9.63% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.87% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.21% <ø> (+0.03%)	⬆️
rust.harpc-tower	67.03% <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	2.52% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.34% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	26.38% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	37.76% <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	87.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	29.69% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	82.29% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.43% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	69.13% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.06% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	92.64% <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.

[hash-worker]

Edited/Blocked Notification

Renovate will not automatically rebase this PR, because it does not recognize the last commit author and assumes somebody else may have edited the PR.

You can manually request rebase by checking the rebase/retry box above.

⚠️ Warning: custom changes will be lost.

[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	$$28.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 190 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.246 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.525 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$14.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 114 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.993 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$44.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 349 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.662 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$16.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 141 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}12.2 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$26.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 253 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.171 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$30.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 228 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.715 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$4.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.03 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$16.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 131 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.533 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$4.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.355 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.335 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.563 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 41.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.776 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.88 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.24 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.73 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 36.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.64 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.800 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.043 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.18 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.82 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.37 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.07 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.20 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.14 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.299 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.503 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$3.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.607 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.685 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.13 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.27 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.59 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.966 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.828 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.033 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$60.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 363 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$51.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 314 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$57.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 287 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.55 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$49.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 199 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.29 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$73.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 335 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.64 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$70.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 386 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.99 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$64.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 438 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.57 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$109 \mathrm{ms} \pm 562 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.112 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$53.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 268 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$319 \mathrm{ms} \pm 935 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$21.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 118 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.64 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$22.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 111 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.05 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$23.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 137 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$21.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 146 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.29 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$26.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 230 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.363 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$21.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 117 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$21.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 113 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$21.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 105 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$22.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 102 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.68 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$28.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 271 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.418 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$37.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 303 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.70 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$37.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 335 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.278 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$38.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 351 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.234 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$37.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 293 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.651 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$37.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 364 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.08 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$37.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 311 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.916 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$36.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 327 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.474 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$37.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 291 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.741 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$38.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 307 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$9.32 \mathrm{ms} \pm 49.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.99 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$101 \mathrm{ms} \pm 569 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.348 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$161 \mathrm{ms} \pm 625 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.548 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$106 \mathrm{ms} \pm 543 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.867 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$120 \mathrm{ms} \pm 508 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.197 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$128 \mathrm{ms} \pm 698 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.483 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$137 \mathrm{ms} \pm 576 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.589 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$108 \mathrm{ms} \pm 517 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.902 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$141 \mathrm{ms} \pm 561 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.386 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$114 \mathrm{ms} \pm 681 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.512 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$125 \mathrm{ms} \pm 678 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.933 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$125 \mathrm{ms} \pm 584 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.616 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$129 \mathrm{ms} \pm 629 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.110 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$180 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.84 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}19.7 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$148 \mathrm{ms} \pm 577 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.008 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$42.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 209 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.64 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$578 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.12 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}2.43 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph