Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Publish the October 2 comparison of Compass main
b7b7fa81(0.4.1) and Graphify 0.9.74 on Cobra, Flask, Gson, Zod and the Axum package. The report separates source-verified graph facts, query recall, interface capabilities, indexing/query cost, memory measurement and rebuild consistency across Compass JSON/SQLite and Graphify base/native-Leiden configurations.The evidence includes all 120 builds, 1,020 query workflows, source oracles and audits, 2,412 stdout/stderr captures deduplicated into 389 streams, package identities, archived method snapshots and publication hashes. Local paths use documented placeholders; the original archive remains unchanged. Graphs, stores, caches, binaries and environments remain external.
Start with
REPORT.md. It preserves competitor wins, Compass failures and publication omissions. The selected development corpora, busy shared host and post-capture directional audit limit the conclusions; this does not establish population precision or a controlled performance ranking.Motivation
Provide reviewable evidence for the engineering team's tooling choice, including the underlying answers and failed checks rather than only aggregate scores. Link the capture from the agent-query guide and
PERFORMANCE.mdwithout replacing the qualification baseline.Verification
The measurement used a successful pinned Rust release build with
cargo build -p compass-cli --bin compass --release --lockedand a dedicated external Cargo target. Original completion verification checked all 120 frozen graphs, 20 query graphs, 1,020 graph-pinned observations and corpus/tool identities. The full Rust baseline and eight-repository promotable performance qualification were not run for this documentation/evidence publication; no runtime source changed, and diagnostic timings are not promoted to a release baseline.Compatibility and documentation
No CLI, graph, storage, integration or runtime-dependency change.
PERFORMANCE.mdand the agent-query guide link the dated report. The evidence is an archival comparison bundle with documented path normalization and separate original/published hashes; archived scripts are text snapshots, not installed commands.Checklist
MIT OR Apache-2.0