Use VortexError in editions

[robert3005]

This was silly by us to depend on vortex-error but not use it

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will regress 2 benchmarks

⚠️ Unknown Walltime execution environment detected

Using the Walltime instrument on standard Hosted Runners will lead to inconsistent data.

For the most accurate results, we recommend using CodSpeed Macro Runners: bare-metal machines fine-tuned for performance measurement consistency.

⚠️ Different runtime environments detected

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

⚡ 5 improved benchmarks
❌ 2 regressed benchmarks
✅ 2190 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 218 skipped benchmarks¹

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	Simulation	random_i8[0.5]	67.8 µs	91.5 µs	-25.86%
❌	Simulation	decompress[u64, (4000, 1024)]	71.8 µs	87.3 µs	-17.77%
⚡	WallTime	arrow_checked_add_u32_neon[16384]	20.4 µs	13.3 µs	+54.07%
⚡	Simulation	random_i16[0.8]	93.8 µs	75.6 µs	+24.16%
⚡	WallTime	arrow_checked_add_u32_avx2[16384]	21.4 µs	17.7 µs	+21.44%
⚡	WallTime	arrow_checked_add_u32_avx512[16384]	21.2 µs	17.6 µs	+20.76%
⚡	WallTime	dict_canonicalize_gt_u8_avx2[16000000]	9.4 ms	7.9 ms	+18.89%

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing rk/errors (6190127) with develop (89b8177)²}

Footnotes

1. 218 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 develop (8e2aa05) during the generation of this report, so 89b8177 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩