H-6317: Bump transitive Cargo dependencies

[TimDiekmann]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Updates Rust dependencies to their latest versions and fixes a Docker build configuration issue.

🔗 Related links

• Automated dependency update

🔍 What does this change?

• Updates multiple Rust crates including AWS SDK components (aws-config, aws-sdk-s3, aws-sdk-sso, etc.) to latest versions
• Updates core dependencies like anyhow, chrono, futures, tokio, and many others
• Replaces ring dependency with sha1 in aws-config
• Fixes Docker build profile from "production" to "release" in hash-graph package.json
• Updates darling macro dependencies and other procedural macro crates
• Updates networking and system-level dependencies

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 test suite should verify compatibility with updated dependencies

❓ How to test this?

1. Checkout the branch
2. Run cargo build to ensure all dependencies compile correctly
3. Run existing test suite to verify no breaking changes
4. Test Docker build with corrected profile setting

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Mar 11, 2026 5:09pm
hashdotdesign	Ready	Preview, Comment	Mar 11, 2026 5:09pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview, Comment	Mar 11, 2026 5:09pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Mar 11, 2026 5:09pm

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Mostly lockfile-only crate upgrades across core/runtime dependencies (AWS SDK, Tokio/Futures, networking/system crates), which can introduce subtle build or runtime regressions. Also changes the hash-graph Docker build to use the Cargo release profile, which may affect produced binaries/perf characteristics in CI/images.

Overview
Updates Cargo.lock with a broad set of transitive Rust dependency bumps (including AWS SDK crates, tokio/futures, uuid, rustls, and various networking/system crates), plus some dependency graph reshuffling (e.g., new getrandom/WASI-related crates and other newly introduced transitive packages).

Fixes apps/hash-graph/package.json Docker build script to pass PROFILE=release instead of PROFILE=production, aligning the build arg with Cargo profiles used by apps/hash-graph/docker/Dockerfile.

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit b15038b. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[TimDiekmann]

• H-6317: Bump transitive Cargo dependencies #8531 👈 (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 set (via Cargo.lock) and adjusts the hash-graph Docker build script to use the intended Cargo build profile.

Changes:

• Bumps a wide set of transitive Rust crates to newer versions (including AWS SDK-related crates and core ecosystem deps like tokio, futures, chrono, etc.).
• Keeps the dependency set consistent by updating the lockfile accordingly.
• Updates apps/hash-graph’s build:docker script to pass PROFILE=release instead of PROFILE=production.

Technical Notes:

• The Docker build continues to support a dev-oriented profile via build:docker:dev; the default “non-dev” build now uses release, which typically avoids heavier LTO settings associated with a custom production profile.
• No application code changes are included beyond the build script adjustment; behavioral changes should primarily stem from the dependency updates.

_{🤖 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 62.68%. Comparing base (d52acf5) to head (b15038b).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8531      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   62.68%   62.68%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1312     1312              
  Lines      133798   133798              
  Branches     5511     5511              
==========================================
- Hits        83870    83869       -1     
- Misses      49013    49014       +1     
  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	7.73% <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	96.14% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
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	2.64% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.34% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	26.64% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	37.88% <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.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 80 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing t/h-6317-bump-transitive-cargo-dependencies (b15038b) with main (d52acf5)}

[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	$$28.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 184 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.074 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.197 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-11.657 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$43.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 373 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.279 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 104 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.766 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$24.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 166 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.303 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 152 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.788 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.597 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 108 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.207 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.858 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.364 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.103 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.36 \mathrm{ms} \pm 38.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.001 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.807 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.436 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.093 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.53 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.928 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.19 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.738 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.472 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.399 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.449 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.714 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.670 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.201 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.19 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.589 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.191 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$3.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.402 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.721 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.606 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.257 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.757 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.518 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.254 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$41.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 221 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.726 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$78.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 416 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.787 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$46.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 206 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.839 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$48.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 224 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.498 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$57.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 255 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.309 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$42.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 174 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.309 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$421 \mathrm{ms} \pm 736 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.087 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$97.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 423 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.413 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$86.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 311 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.924 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$316 \mathrm{ms} \pm 616 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.54 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$15.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.811 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$15.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 70.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.482 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$16.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 141 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.602 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$15.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.234 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$19.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 193 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.841 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$15.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.948 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$15.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.153 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$15.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.169 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$16.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.613 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$23.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 139 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.217 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$30.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 301 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.524 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$31.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 306 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.373 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$31.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 318 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.827 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$29.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 275 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.663 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$31.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 268 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.793 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$30.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 239 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.778 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$31.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 247 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.367 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$30.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 258 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-11.709 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$30.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 283 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.436 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 48.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.544 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$91.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 587 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.289 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$142 \mathrm{ms} \pm 534 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.704 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$98.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 753 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.790 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 491 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.666 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$113 \mathrm{ms} \pm 479 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.372 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 531 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.371 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$87.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 428 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.454 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$116 \mathrm{ms} \pm 446 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.702 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$94.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 458 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.479 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$103 \mathrm{ms} \pm 373 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.401 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 450 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.992 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 453 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.079 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$135 \mathrm{ms} \pm 498 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.173 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$136 \mathrm{ms} \pm 579 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.84 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 571 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}161 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$568 \mathrm{ms} \pm 3.01 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}1.15 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph