Test reports
Select a report to view its results and test conditions. Earlier reports remain available when new results are published.
MEASURED PROGRESS
Local Recall scaling benchmark
Local Recall validated from 1,000 to 10 million memory patterns, with zero correctness failures across 221,309 measured queries in the complete test series.
Test date:
Test conditions
One local development machine, 6 logical processors, 6 concurrent workers, random seed 104729 and a configured LTM memory budget of 10 GiB. Existing datasets were used; Commit was not rerun. These measurements cover Storage and Recall, excluding LLM response generation.
Scaling results: 1K to 10M patterns
The 1K, 10K and 100K rows use the baseline measurements. The 1M and 10M rows use the stable measurements after Posting Compaction. Memory and disk sizes retain the units reported in the source summary.
How to read these results
The tables combine standard performance metrics with scenario names from the LTM benchmark. The definitions below explain how to interpret them.
- Patterns
- The number of Patterns in the benchmark dataset. This is a count of LTM memory units, not a count of users, agents, tokens or queries. 1K means 1,000; 1M means 1,000,000.
- Open (s)
- The recorded time to open an existing LTM dataset, expressed in seconds. This is separate from Recall query latency. The stable-state results for 1M and 10M were measured after Posting Compaction.
- Peak Managed
- The reported peak managed memory during the benchmark run. Managed memory is memory managed by the .NET runtime; it does not represent all memory used by the process.
- Peak Working Set
- The reported peak amount of process memory resident in physical RAM during the benchmark run. It includes more than managed memory and is separate from the configured LTM memory budget.
- P50 / P95 / P99
- Query latency percentiles. P50 is the median; P95 and P99 describe the slower end of the measured latency distribution. Approximately 95% of measured queries finish at or below P95, and 99% at or below P99. Values are expressed in milliseconds, and lower values indicate shorter latency.
- Hot / Context
- Hot and Context are benchmark scenario names. Hot identifies the Hot query workload; Context identifies the context-based query workload. Hot does not itself mean that the query result is cached. For example, Hot Cold-first is the Hot scenario measured under the benchmark's cold-first conditions.
- Cold-first / Warm
- Cold-first and Warm distinguish cache conditions in the benchmark. Cold-first identifies the initial-query measurements; Warm identifies the subsequent workload measurements. Warm does not guarantee a cache hit. These labels alone do not establish that the operating system's file cache was cleared.
- Physical Reads
- The physical-read counter reported by the benchmark for the corresponding scenario. It is not automatically a per-query average or a count of disk-device operations. Compare these counters only when the measurement scope and workload are comparable.
- Throughput (qps)
- The number of measured queries completed per second during the scenario. Throughput depends on the workload and concurrency; it is not necessarily the reciprocal of P50 latency.
- Cache Hit / Miss
- The cache-hit and cache-miss counters reported for the scenario, shown as Hit / Miss. These counters describe the instrumented cache, not every cache in the system. The 100% result-cache hit rate applies to the reported HotWarm and ContextWarm measurements.
- Posting Compaction
- A maintenance operation that rewrites posting data into a more compact layout. The tables compare measurements before this operation with stable-state measurements after it. Its first-run cost is reported separately from subsequent stable-state Open times.
These measurements concern local Storage and Recall performance. They exclude LLM response generation and do not establish production service guarantees or the quality of an agent's reasoning. Exact query construction, cache preparation and counter boundaries should be read together with the benchmark implementation and methodology.
| Patterns | Open (s) | Disk | Peak Managed | Peak Working Set | Hot Cold P50 (ms) | Context Cold P50 (ms) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1K | 0.73 | 0.73 MB | 19.90 MB | 67.50 MB | 3.62 | 1.84 |
| 10K | 0.99 | 7.94 MB | 37.60 MB | 98.62 MB | 5.61 | 6.94 |
| 100K | 2.94 | 77.27 MB | 142.21 MB | 216.84 MB | 17.15 | 18.62 |
| 1M | 9.71 | 669.06 MB | 455.88 MB | 548.00 MB | 11.47 | 3.29 |
| 10M | 103.69 | 6.64 GB | 6.45 GB | 6.71 GB | 91.45 | 12.98 |
Peak Managed describes managed memory; Peak Working Set describes resident process memory. Neither is the same as the configured LTM memory budget. From 1M to 10M, both reported memory peaks grew faster than the pattern count.
Cold-first Recall latency
| Patterns | Scenario | P50 (ms) | P95 (ms) | P99 (ms) | Reported physical reads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1K | Hot | 3.62 | 4.60 | 4.60 | 80 |
| 1K | Context | 1.84 | 2.96 | 17.30 | 1,000 |
| 10K | Hot | 5.61 | 8.14 | 8.14 | 400 |
| 10K | Context | 6.94 | 10.22 | 23.09 | 9,700 |
| 100K | Hot | 17.15 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 1,600 |
| 100K | Context | 18.62 | 21.79 | 36.49 | 38,800 |
| 1M | Hot | 11.47 | 19.94 | 19.94 | 4 |
| 1M | Context | 3.29 | 4.88 | 21.95 | 97 |
| 10M | Hot | 91.45 | 101.00 | 101.00 | 4 |
| 10M | Context | 12.98 | 14.29 | 29.07 | 97 |
Physical reads are the reported scenario counters, not a per-query average. Cold-first and warm results must be considered separately. At 10M, Hot Cold-first latency remains higher than at 1M despite the reduced physical reads.
10M: detailed stable-state Recall results
| Scenario | P50 (ms) | P95 (ms) | P99 (ms) | Throughput (qps) | Cache Hit / Miss | Reported physical reads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HotColdFirst | 91.45 | 101.00 | 101.00 | 9.87 | 0 / 4 | 4 |
| ContextColdFirst | 12.98 | 14.29 | 29.07 | 72.50 | 0 / 97 | 97 |
| RareFeatureWarm | 0.72 | 1.75 | 2.91 | 7,008.95 | 0 / 10,000 | 9,968 |
| SharedFeatureWarm | 6.61 | 10.97 | 24.28 | 765.45 | 0 / 10,000 | 9,968 |
| HotWarm | 5.93 | 7.22 | 19.00 | 931.87 | 10,000 / 0 | 0 |
| ContextWarm | 5.90 | 7.19 | 19.64 | 909.03 | 10,000 / 0 | 0 |
HotWarm and ContextWarm each recorded 10,000 cache hits, no misses and no physical reads. This 100% hit rate applies to those measured warm scenarios, not to all queries or workloads. P50, P95 and P99 are latency percentiles; qps means queries per second.
Before and after Posting Compaction
| Patterns | Metric | Before compaction | Stable state after compaction |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1M | Open | 13.68 s | 9.71 s |
| 1M | Disk | 753.59 MB | 669.06 MB |
| 1M | Peak Managed | 926.02 MB | 455.88 MB |
| 1M | Peak Working Set | 1,012.43 MB | 548.00 MB |
| 1M | Hot Cold P50 | 79.46 ms | 11.47 ms |
| 1M | Context Cold P50 | 85.20 ms | 3.29 ms |
| 1M | Shared Warm P50 | 6.99 ms | 3.93 ms |
| 1M | Shared Warm throughput | 786.56 qps | 1,426.73 qps |
| 10M | Open | 144.35 s | 103.69 s |
| 10M | Disk | 7.44 GB | 6.64 GB |
| 10M | Peak Managed | 8.26 GB | 6.45 GB |
| 10M | Peak Working Set | 7.40 GB | 6.71 GB |
| 10M | Hot Cold P50 | 603.44 ms | 91.45 ms |
| 10M | Context Cold P50 | 536.54 ms | 12.98 ms |
| 10M | Shared Warm P50 | 15.85 ms | 6.61 ms |
| 10M | Shared Warm throughput | 269.64 qps | 765.45 qps |
First compaction cost
| Patterns | FeatureRewrite (s) | ContextRewrite (s) | Total compaction (s) | Compaction check on reopen (ms) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1M | 40.50 | 11.21 | 54.56 | 18.87 |
| 10M | 432.47 | 68.74 | 539.96 | 67.67 |
The total includes work beyond the two rewrite phases. The reopen column measures the compaction check, not the complete Open time. Subsequent opens of the tested compacted datasets did not repeat FeatureRewrite or ContextRewrite; this does not establish that future changed datasets will never need maintenance.
Scope and remaining validation
These are local development benchmarks, not a production SLA or a Cloud performance guarantee. The largest fully validated scale in this report is 10M; 100M and 1B validation remains incomplete. Results exclude LLM inference. Tail latency can vary with operating system scheduling, garbage collection and concurrent activity. Zero observed correctness failures refers to the benchmark checks and is not a claim about an agent's reasoning quality.