Measure numeric arithmetic and comparison benchmarks per CPU feature

[connortsui20]

Summary

Sweeps #[cpu_features] across the microbenchmarks that clearly earn it: the binary numeric arithmetic and comparison kernels. Those are portable lane loops — the source is identical on every target and the vector width the compiler picks comes from the build flags — which is the case the attribute exists for. Measuring them in simulation under one fixed +avx2 build hides the only variable that matters.

Middle of a three-PR stack: #9598, then this PR, then #9587. It carries no kernel changes of its own — everything here is a benchmark attribute — so it can be reordered or rebased onto develop without touching the other two.

Changes

Tagged:

• binary_ops: the primitive arithmetic cases (add_*, subtract_*, multiply_*, mul_*, div_i64_*, sub_i64_constant, and the three *_shapes matrices) and the two primitive comparison cases (eq_i64_constant, lt_i64_nullable).
• compare: compare_int, compare_int_nullable, compare_int_constant, compare_int_eq, compare_float.
• scalar_subtract.
• lane_kernels: lanezip_checked_add_u32 and its arrow_checked_add_u32 baseline. The baseline is tagged too — comparing the two is only meaningful under the same build flags.

Left in simulation, with the reasoning recorded in each file's module docs:

• Decimal arithmetic and comparison: i128 widening and per-lane rescaling, not something a wider vector register decides.
• Boolean and/or: already word-at-a-time over a bitmap.
• String and struct comparison: dominated by view chasing and per-field dispatch.
• Casts in lane_kernels: vectorization-sensitive, but out of scope here.

Also left alone: the between benchmarks in vortex-fastlanes (new_raw_prim_test_between is a raw-primitive comparison kernel and does qualify) and the bit-packed comparison matrices. Both are types =/consts = parameterized, which #[cpu_features] has no coverage for yet, and both would fan out to dozens of walltime series. Worth a follow-up rather than a guess in this PR.

Note that tagging moves a benchmark out of the sharded simulation job, so these series restart on the walltime legs instead of continuing their simulation history.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 11.59%

⚠️ Unknown Walltime execution environment detected

Using the Walltime instrument on standard Hosted Runners will lead to inconsistent data.

For the most accurate results, we recommend using CodSpeed Macro Runners: bare-metal machines fine-tuned for performance measurement consistency.

❌ 1 regressed benchmark
✅ 1928 untouched benchmarks
🆕 168 new benchmarks
⏩ 106 skipped benchmarks¹

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	Simulation	cold_misaligned[(16, 64)]	380.2 µs	430.1 µs	-11.59%
🆕	WallTime	compare_f32_neon	N/A	5.4 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	compare_int_constant_left_neon	N/A	4 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	compare_u64_neon	N/A	4.4 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	compare_u8_neon	N/A	3.7 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	add_i32_nonnull_neon	N/A	7.9 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	add_i64_constant_neon	N/A	9.9 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	add_i64_nonnull_neon	N/A	9.8 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	add_i64_nullable_neon	N/A	11.5 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	add_shapes_neon[(128, ConstantPerRow)]	N/A	3 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	add_shapes_neon[(128, PerRowConstant)]	N/A	3.1 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	add_shapes_neon[(128, PerRowNullableConstant)]	N/A	3.7 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	add_shapes_neon[(128, PerRowPerRow)]	N/A	1.9 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	add_shapes_neon[(16384, ConstantPerRow)]	N/A	9.9 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	add_shapes_neon[(16384, PerRowConstant)]	N/A	9.9 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	add_shapes_neon[(16384, PerRowNullableConstant)]	N/A	10.5 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	add_shapes_neon[(16384, PerRowPerRow)]	N/A	9.9 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	add_u32_nonnull_neon	N/A	6.6 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	div_i64_nonnull_neon	N/A	52.2 µs	N/A
🆕	WallTime	div_i64_nullable_neon	N/A	33 µs	N/A
...	...	...	...	...	...

ℹ️ Only the first 20 benchmarks are displayed. Go to the app to view all benchmarks.

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing ct/cpu-features-numeric-benches (9688ad0) with develop (e4b3421)²}

Footnotes

1. 106 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

2. No successful run was found on develop (0ef496c) during the generation of this report, so e4b3421 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩