true, false: Drop benches less than 1 nano sec

[oech3]

benches less than 1 ns are not supported at CodSpeed well...

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

GNU test failed: tests/wc/wc-proc. tests/wc/wc-proc is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
Skip an intermittent issue tests/pr/bounded-memory (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/cut/bounded-memory (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/date/resolution (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Note: The gnu test tests/seq/seq-epipe is now being skipped but was previously passing.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 14.62%

⚡ 5 improved benchmarks
❌ 8 regressed benchmarks
✅ 287 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 46 skipped benchmarks¹

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

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚡	Simulation	seq_integers	26.6 ms	24.9 ms	+6.8%
⚡	Simulation	seq_custom_separator	29.3 ms	27.6 ms	+6.15%
⚡	Simulation	seq_with_step	13.5 ms	12.7 ms	+6.82%
⚡	Simulation	du_summarize_balanced_tree[(5, 4, 10)]	6.7 ms	6.5 ms	+3.48%
❌	Simulation	false_consecutive_calls	170.3 ns	199.4 ns	-14.62%
❌	Simulation	true_consecutive_calls	170.3 ns	199.4 ns	-14.62%
⚡	Simulation	sort_numeric[500000]	1 s	1 s	+3.13%
❌	Simulation	unexpand_many_lines[100000]	134.4 ms	144.3 ms	-6.86%
❌	Simulation	unexpand_large_file[10]	281.5 ms	302.2 ms	-6.86%
❌	Simulation	fold_custom_width[50000]	24.3 ms	25.3 ms	-4.03%
❌	Simulation	fold_many_lines[100000]	61.8 ms	63.8 ms	-3.18%
❌	Simulation	expand_custom_tabstops[50000]	16.6 ms	17.7 ms	-6.38%
❌	Simulation	expand_many_lines[100000]	64.6 ms	68.4 ms	-5.44%

---

_{Comparing oech3:true-1ns (8abc10c) with main (9654e4a)}

Footnotes

1. 46 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. ↩

[xtqqczze]

@oech3 Why is there so much variation in CodSpeed benchmark results?

[oech3]

I don't know. This is not true,false specific.

[xtqqczze]

I've been seeing very high benchmark variance elsewhere, for example: #11211 (comment)