Partial cascading is in fact slow?

#	User	Rating
1	tourist	3985
2	jiangly	3814
3	jqdai0815	3682
4	Benq	3529
5	orzdevinwang	3526
6	ksun48	3517
7	Radewoosh	3410
8	hos.lyric	3399
9	ecnerwala	3392
9	Um_nik	3392

#	User	Contrib.
1	cry	169
2	maomao90	162
2	Um_nik	162
4	atcoder_official	161
5	djm03178	158
6	-is-this-fft-	157
7	adamant	155
8	awoo	154
8	Dominater069	154
10	luogu_official	151

Consider a well-known problem: given a static array of size n, answer m queries of kind "how many numbers on [l, r] have value less than x". The standard solution is to build a segment tree where in every node we store a sorted vector. To answer a query we do a binary search in every corresponding node, achieving $\text{[math]}$ per query time complexity.

There is a method to reduce time complexity to $\text{[math]}$ per query, called partial cascading. Instead of doing binary search in each node we do it only in the root, and then "push" its result to children in O(1).

For years I thought that the second approach is blazingly faster than the first one. And today I've made a test. I implemented both approaches in a pretty straightforward way and tested them on a random data. The results were quite surprising.

Partial cascading: 760 ms

Top-down implementation: 670 ms

Bottom-up implementation: 520 ms

The first one is $\text{[math]}$ , others are $\text{[math]}$ ! Time is averaged over several consecutive runs. Test data is generated randomly with n = 100000, m = 200000.