feat(benchmarks): improve measurement accuracy and add missing benchmarks

[tbhb]

Summary

• Restructure compact benchmarks to pre-populate history/tombstones in setup, measuring pure compact() performance
• Fix delete benchmark to use unique keys per iteration via counter pattern (no restore cycle)
• Add benchmarks for find_one, items, and reload methods
• Add EDGE_PARAMS (scale=0, scale=1) for boundary testing on appropriate tests
• Add generator helpers: create_extended_test_table, create_table_with_history, create_table_with_tombstones

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #6 will create unknown performance changes

_{Comparing benchmarks (4fb6a33) with main (0326a5a)¹}

Summary

🆕 173 new
⏩ 1 skipped²

Benchmarks breakdown

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
🆕	test_put_update_record[small-int-100]	N/A	3.7 ms	N/A
🆕	test_batch_put_10[small-str-100]	N/A	35.9 ms	N/A
🆕	test_compact_with_tombstones[small-tuple-1k]	N/A	94.2 ms	N/A
🆕	test_batch_put_10[small-int-1k]	N/A	321.1 ms	N/A
🆕	test_batch_put_100[small-str-100]	N/A	494.3 ms	N/A
🆕	test_put_new_record[small-int-100]	N/A	3.7 ms	N/A
🆕	test_batch_put_10[small-str-1k]	N/A	321.6 ms	N/A
🆕	test_batch_put_100[small-int-100]	N/A	492.1 ms	N/A
🆕	test_compact_with_tombstones[small-str-1k]	N/A	60.2 ms	N/A
🆕	test_batch_put_10[small-tuple-1k]	N/A	376.4 ms	N/A
🆕	test_put_update_record[small-int-1k]	N/A	33.6 ms	N/A
🆕	test_put_new_record[small-int-1k]	N/A	33.6 ms	N/A
🆕	test_put_new_record[small-tuple-1k]	N/A	39.4 ms	N/A
🆕	test_put_new_record[small-tuple-100]	N/A	4.3 ms	N/A
🆕	test_batch_put_10[small-int-100]	N/A	35.6 ms	N/A
🆕	test_put_new_record[small-str-100]	N/A	4.2 ms	N/A
🆕	test_compact_with_history[small-int-100]	N/A	6.9 ms	N/A
🆕	test_put_update_record[small-str-1k]	N/A	33.6 ms	N/A
🆕	test_compact_with_history[small-str-100]	N/A	7.1 ms	N/A
🆕	test_put_update_record[small-tuple-1k]	N/A	39.4 ms	N/A
...	...	...	...	...

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

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (caa1c0d) during the generation of this report, so 0326a5a was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

2. 1 benchmark was skipped, so the baseline result was used instead. If it was deleted from the codebase, click here and archive it to remove it from the performance reports. ↩