docs(bench): re-run all three engines on the current base

[FBumann]

Every number in docs/benchmarks.md predated #233, #234 and #238, and was measured against linopy 0.9.0 rather than the v1-semantics build this branch now pins. Re-taken in one run: five cases, two sinks, three arms, best of three, plus the marginal-cost pass. 408 timings and 72 loop records, no failures.

Ahead on both axes on every case, through the hand-off

l rung	polars	linopy	duckdb	wall	peak
dispatch 10M	0.68 s	1.92 s	2.75 s	0.35x	0.95x
nodal 3M	0.34 s	1.07 s	1.78 s	0.32x	0.84x
sector 1M	0.31 s	1.23 s	—	0.25x	0.32x
transport 9.8M	1.12 s	2.49 s	3.59 s	0.45x	0.76x
profiled 12M	2.15 s	2.49 s	6.34 s	0.86x	0.88x

profiled was the one exception until #238 stopped the duplicate-coordinate check grouping 12M rows to answer a yes/no question.

The LP file stays the weaker route — 0.71x to 1.35x on wall, transport 1.69x on peak — and structurally so: most of an LP write is float-to-text, which neither lane avoids, so that ratio compresses toward 1.00 however fast the build gets.

Against duckdb: 2.2-5.2x faster on every case and both sinks, and duckdb 1.2-2.9x lighter.

The parity gate now proves something

It agrees across all three arms at 0.0e+00 on every shared case — which is also what shows this branch's v1 semantics (#234) and main's (#239) build the same model, rather than each merely claiming to.

Provenance

Names a commit per arm rather than a version, because two of the three have no meaningful version string: the duckdb arm is a checkout, and the polars arm is an editable install that reports its sync point rather than the tree that ran.

arm	engine	commit
farkas	polars engine, polars 1.43.0	45902ec
linopy	0.8.0.post1.dev140+g346943317 (PyPSA/linopy#717)	shim at the same commit
duckdb	duckdb 1.5.5	4a13d38 on main

Also corrects the shim-overhead claim: it is a constant ~2.3 ms (1.26x at xs, 1.15x at m), not the "~15%" this file carried from one measurement at one rung.

417 passed / 1 xfailed, ruff and pyrefly clean.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 23a0ced6-8daa-4bc6-abdd-1baa5b3a9774

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• 🔍 Trigger review

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch bench/refresh-ladder

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}