docs: perf-targets register — measured optimization candidates

- target 1: write path (update-through-query re-probe, triple index
  walk, per-field encode, whole-row WAL update record) — re-measure
  after 23, then decide
- targets 2-4 recorded with owners (DB-RPC by design/24, mutex inbox
  /31, fsync bound /23)
- board pending + comparison README link the register

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

bench/compare/go-sqlite/README.md

@@ -29,8 +29,8 @@ Readings, honestly:
   boundary; SQLite pays B-tree page traversal + the cgo call per op.
 - **ram writes: SQLite wins ~1.9×** — writeonce's update path re-runs a
   probe per update (update-through-query) and its insert encodes slots
-  per field; SQLite's page write is tight. A real optimization target,
+  per field; SQLite's page write is tight. Registered as target 1 in
-  now measured.
+  [`docs/plan/perf-targets.md`](../../../docs/plan/perf-targets.md).
 - **durable seed: writeonce wins ~1.4×** (append-only WAL + fdatasync
   vs SQLite WAL frame + FULL sync); durable mixed writes flip back to
   SQLite ×1.4 — the update's extra probe again.

docs/plan/perf-targets.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# Performance targets — measured, named, waiting
+
+A register like [`discarded.md`](discarded.md)/[`learnings.md`](learnings.md):
+optimization candidates that exist because a NUMBER says so, not a
+hunch. Every row cites its measurement (the db-bench campaign,
+`bench/baseline.json`, or the [go-sqlite comparison](../../bench/compare/go-sqlite/README.md))
+and names an owner iteration when one exists. A target leaves this file
+by landing (delta recorded in the baseline) or by being rejected into
+`discarded.md` with its reason.
+
+## 1. The write path — update-through-query re-probes, insert re-encodes
+
+**Measured 2026-08-22** (go-sqlite comparison, N=20k, same machine,
+ext4): ram mixed writes 195,465 ops/s vs SQLite's 380,069 (×1.9
+behind); durable mixed writes 2,324 vs 3,257 (×1.4 behind) — while
+writeonce WINS durable seed ×1.4 and reads ×2.6–6.4. The write gap is
+specifically the UPDATE half of the mix.
+
+Suspected costs, in probable order (attribute before optimizing — the
+C-API microbench the 22 spec reserves exists for exactly this):
+
+1. **Update-through-query runs a whole query statement per update**:
+   probe (now O(1)) + materialize an id `multi` (arena alloc) +
+   `DB_GET_FIELD`/`DB_UPDATE_FIELD` builtin round-trips per touched
+   field. SQLite's equivalent is one page write inside one statement.
+2. **`wo_row_update_field` walks every index three times** (shadow
+   unique check, old-entry removal, new-entry add — three
+   `touches`-loops over `t->indexes` per update; see
+   `database/src/table.c`).
+3. **Insert encodes per field with a malloc per text/owned value**
+   (`db_val_encode`) — visible as ram seed ×1.2 behind SQLite (245k vs
+   297k) even though the durable flavor wins.
+4. **A WAL update record re-encodes the whole row**
+   (`wo_wal_append_update` writes the row image, not a delta).
+
+**Owner:** none yet. Sequence note: iteration 23 (io_uring
+group-commit) rewrites the durable write path's syscall story anyway —
+re-measure after 23 lands, then decide whether the RAM-side costs
+(1–3) earn their own slice. Acceptance shape: ram write ops/s closes
+on SQLite's number with reads unharmed; baseline refreshed with the
+delta recorded.
+
+## 2. Cross-shard DB RPC halves concurrent read throughput
+
+**Measured 2026-08-22** (db-bench campaign): ram mixread 89,538 ops/s
+single-shard vs 44,918 at default cores; durable 9,211 vs 4,324. The
+DB actor serializes every statement on shard 0 and each op pays an
+envelope + park/unpark round-trip.
+
+**Owner: by design, priced deliberately** (story 8's settled decision
+1 — rejected alternatives: engine lock, partitioned tables "wait for a
+measured need"). THIS is the measured need's first data point; the
+recorded escalation path is partitioned/replicated read state, only if
+a real workload (iteration 24's chat) hurts. Not actionable before 24.
+
+## 3. The mutex inbox costs ~6× on cross-shard message rate
+
+**Measured 2026-08-22**: 16.7M msgs/s same-heap vs 2.85M cross-shard
+(`msgrate`). **Owner: iteration 31** (mailbox/backpressure decisions
+consume this number) and stage-2 deviation 4 (lock-free rings arrive
+only if the mutex is the measured bottleneck — at 2.85M msgs/s it is
+not the limiting factor for any current workload).
+
+## 4. Durable write throughput is fsync-bound at ~4.5k/s
+
+**Measured 2026-08-21**: durable seed 4,460 inserts/s vs ram 245k —
+the ~55× gap is one fdatasync per statement (~220µs each).
+**Owner: iteration 23** (io_uring group-commit) — its acceptance is
+literally this number moving while the crash battery stays green.

docs/stories/00-status.md

@@ -427,6 +427,11 @@ The C proving-ground work (`exploration/c-runtime/`, phases A–F: 859k reads/s,
 
 ## Pending
 
+Measured optimization candidates live in
+[`docs/plan/perf-targets.md`](../plan/perf-targets.md) — a register
+like discarded/learnings: a target enters with a number, leaves by
+landing (baseline delta) or by rejection into discarded.md.
+
 ### Implementation order (re-sequenced 2026-08-21 — concurrency chain)
 
 Everything still pending IS the runtime-concurrency chain. Basis: the