Do not build workspace to generate changelog #6347

Performance Regression: -99.98%

⚡ 2 improved benchmarks
❌ 55 regressed benchmarks
✅ 1081 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 1265 skipped benchmarks¹

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

	Mode	Benchmark	`BASE`	`HEAD`	Efficiency
⚡	Simulation	`chunked_bool_into_canonical[(1000, 10)]`	87.5 µs	66.1 µs	+32.4%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[1024, 100]`	6.7 µs	929.1 µs	-99.28%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[1024, 1000]`	6.7 µs	8,885 µs	-99.93%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[16, 1000]`	6.6 µs	219.9 µs	-96.99%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[64, 1000]`	6.7 µs	609.7 µs	-98.9%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[256, 100]`	6.7 µs	261.4 µs	-97.45%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[16, 100]`	8 µs	109.4 µs	-92.65%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[256, 1000]`	6.7 µs	2,162.5 µs	-99.69%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[16, 1000]`	6.7 µs	178.6 µs	-96.24%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[4096, 100]`	6.7 µs	3,577.9 µs	-99.81%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[1024, 100]`	6.7 µs	913 µs	-99.27%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[64, 100]`	6.7 µs	100 µs	-93.32%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[4096, 1000]`	6.7 µs	35,264.1 µs	-99.98%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[1024, 1000]`	6.7 µs	8,896.3 µs	-99.92%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[4096, 1000]`	6.7 µs	35,463.2 µs	-99.98%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[64, 1000]`	6.7 µs	593.6 µs	-98.87%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[256, 1000]`	6.7 µs	2,253.8 µs	-99.7%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[4096, 100]`	6.7 µs	3,569.4 µs	-99.81%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[64, 100]`	6.7 µs	83.4 µs	-91.96%
❌	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[256, 100]`	6.7 µs	249 µs	-97.29%
...	...	...	...	...	...

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

_{Comparing ngates/no-build (8a12689) with develop (b86f661)²}

1265 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. ↩
No successful run was found on develop (a11336d) during the generation of this report, so b86f661 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩