Improve CodSpeed benchmark observability

[Bobronium]

No description provided.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will create unknown performance changes

🆕 194 new benchmarks
⏩ 358 skipped benchmarks¹

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
🆕	Simulation	test_real[3.14-x86_64-tabular_1000]	N/A	1.8 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real_stdlib_patched[3.14-x86_64-openapi_schema]	N/A	168 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real_stdlib[3.14-x86_64-tabular_100]	N/A	1.3 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real_stdlib_patched[3.14-x86_64-orm_graph_10u3s]	N/A	297.1 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real_stdlib[3.14-x86_64-orm_graph_10u3s]	N/A	1.1 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real_stdlib_patched[3.14-x86_64-json_api_response]	N/A	256.3 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real_stdlib[3.14-x86_64-tabular_1000]	N/A	13.1 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real[3.14-x86_64-orm_graph_10u3s]	N/A	295.3 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real_stdlib_patched[3.14-x86_64-tabular_100]	N/A	248 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real_stdlib_patched[3.14-x86_64-tabular_1000]	N/A	1.9 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real_dict_memo[3.14-x86_64-image_1024x1024]	N/A	13.6 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real_stdlib_patched[3.14-x86_64-config_shared_defaults]	N/A	112.2 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real_stdlib_patched[3.14-x86_64-image_1024x1024]	N/A	28.7 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real_dict_memo[3.14-x86_64-tabular_1000]	N/A	14.1 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real_dict_memo[3.14-x86_64-openapi_schema]	N/A	13.4 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real_stdlib[3.14-x86_64-json_api_response]	N/A	1.3 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real[3.14-x86_64-config_shared_defaults]	N/A	46.8 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real[3.14-x86_64-image_1024x1024]	N/A	28.7 ms	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real[3.14-x86_64-tabular_100]	N/A	185.3 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	test_real_stdlib[3.14-x86_64-image_1024x1024]	N/A	540.3 ms	N/A
...	...	...	...	...	...

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

---

_{Comparing improve-benchmarks (91c1ec5) with main (633b621)²}

Footnotes

1. 358 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 main (0c1d1c8) during the generation of this report, so 633b621 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩