Use a stack buffer to reduce memory allocations.
`Write(AppendQuote(AvailableBuffer` does not allocate or copy when
the buffer has sufficient space.
Also add a benchmark, with some refactoring.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
The individual strings for label names and values are held in a table,
and each Labels value is a run of varint-encoded indexes into that table.
When creating new labels, a sync.Mutex is locked around reads and writes.
When reading labels, there is no locking because the table of strings
used by those labels is immutable.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
The current implementation of `InternStrings` will only save memory
when the whole set of labels is identical to one already seen, and this
cannot happen in the one place it is called from in Prometheus,
remote-write, which already detects identical series.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
This PR is a reference implementation of the proposal described in #10420.
In addition to what described in #10420, in this PR I've introduced labels.StableHash(). The idea is to offer an hashing function which doesn't change over time, and that's used by query sharding in order to get a stable behaviour over time. The implementation of labels.StableHash() is the hashing function used by Prometheus before stringlabels, and what's used by Grafana Mimir for query sharding (because built before stringlabels was a thing).
Follow up work
As mentioned in #10420, if this PR is accepted I'm also open to upload another foundamental piece used by Grafana Mimir query sharding to accelerate the query execution: an optional, configurable and fast in-memory cache for the series hashes.
Signed-off-by: Marco Pracucci <marco@pracucci.com>
This function is called very frequently when executing PromQL functions,
and we can do it much more efficiently inside Labels.
In the common case that `__name__` comes first in the labels, we simply
re-point to start at the next label, which is nearly free.
`DropMetricName` is now so cheap I removed the cache - benchmarks show
everything still goes faster.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
This reduces bulk and should avoid issues if a fix is made in one file
and not the other.
A few methods now call `Range()` instead of `range`, but nothing
performance-sensitive.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
* Labels: reduce allocations when creating from TSDB
When reading the WAL, by passing references into the buffer we can avoid
copying strings under `-tags stringlabels`.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Inline one call to `decodeString`, and skip decoding the value string
until we find a match for the name.
Do a quick check on the first character in each string,
and exit early if we've gone past - labels are sorted in order.
Also improve tests and benchmark:
* labels: test Get with varying lengths - it's not typical for Prometheus labels to all be the same length.
* extend benchmark with label not found
---------
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Instead of unpacking every individual string, we skip to the point
where there is a difference, going 8 bytes at a time where possible.
Add benchmark for Compare; extend tests too.
---------
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.com>
This is a minor cosmetical change, but my IDE (and I guess many of them)
nests `labels_string.go` under `labels.go` because it assumes it's the
file generated by the `stringer` tool, which follows that naming
pattern.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.com>
labels: dont compile regex matcher if we know its a literal
Signed-off-by: Michael Hoffmann <mhoffm@posteo.de>
Co-authored-by: Sharad <sharadgaur@gmail.com>
* labels: respect Set after Del in Builder
The implementations are not symmetric between `Set()` and `Del()`, so
we must be careful. Add tests for this, both in labels and in relabel
where the issue was reported.
Also make the slice implementation consistent re `slices.Contains`.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Wiser coders than myself have come to the conclusion that a `switch`
statement is almost always superior to a statement that includes any
`else if`.
The exceptions that I have found in our codebase are just these two:
* The `if else` is followed by an additional statement before the next
condition (separated by a `;`).
* The whole thing is within a `for` loop and `break` statements are
used. In this case, using `switch` would require tagging the `for`
loop, which probably tips the balance.
Why are `switch` statements more readable?
For one, fewer curly braces. But more importantly, the conditions all
have the same alignment, so the whole thing follows the natural flow
of going down a list of conditions. With `else if`, in contrast, all
conditions but the first are "hidden" behind `} else if `, harder to
spot and (for no good reason) presented differently from the first
condition.
I'm sure the aforemention wise coders can list even more reasons.
In any case, I like it so much that I have found myself recommending
it in code reviews. I would like to make it a habit in our code base,
without making it a hard requirement that we would test on the CI. But
for that, there has to be a role model, so this commit eliminates all
`if else` occurrences, unless it is autogenerated code or fits one of
the exceptions above.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@grafana.com>
Add a fast path for the common case that a string is less than 127 bytes
long, to skip a shift and the loop.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
This is a method used by some downstream projects; it was created to
optimize the implementation in `labels_string.go` but we should have one
for both implementations so the same code works with either.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Deleted labels are remembered, even if they were not in `base` or were
removed from `add`, so `base+add-del` could go negative.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Go spends some time initializing all the elements of these arrays to
zero, so reduce the size from 1024 to 128. This is still much bigger
than we ever expect for a set of labels.
(If someone does have more than 128 labels it will still work, but via
heap allocation.)
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
It took a `Labels` where the memory could be re-used, but in practice
this hardly ever benefitted. Especially after converting `relabel.Process`
to `relabel.ProcessBuilder`.
Comparing the parameter to `nil` was a bug; `EmptyLabels` is not `nil`
so the slice was reallocated multiple times by `append`.
Lastly `Builder.Labels()` now estimates that the final size will depend
on labels added and deleted.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Although we had a different slice, the underlying memory was the same so
any changes meant we could skip some values.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
This lets relabelling work on a `Builder` rather than converting to and
from `Labels` on every rule.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
The difference is modest, but we've used `slices.Sort` in lots of other
places so why not here.
name old time/op new time/op delta
Builder 1.04µs ± 3% 0.95µs ± 3% -8.27% (p=0.008 n=5+5)
name old alloc/op new alloc/op delta
Builder 312B ± 0% 288B ± 0% -7.69% (p=0.008 n=5+5)
name old allocs/op new allocs/op delta
Builder 2.00 ± 0% 1.00 ± 0% -50.00% (p=0.008 n=5+5)
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
This makes the buffer the correct size for the common case that labels
have only been added. It will be too large for the case that labels are
changed, but the current buffer resize logic in `appendLabelTo` doubles
the buffer, so a small over-estimate is better.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
These benchmarks were testing things related to what Prometheus does, but not testing actual Prometheus code.
Moved the label-copying benchmark into the labels package.
This commit adds an alternate implementation for `labels.Labels`, behind
a build tag `stringlabels`.
Instead of storing label names and values as individual strings, they
are all concatenated into one string in this format:
[len][name0][len][value0][len][name1][len][value1]...
The lengths are varint encoded so usually a single byte.
The previous `[]string` had 24 bytes of overhead for the slice and 16
for each label name and value; this one has 16 bytes overhead plus 1
for each name and value.
In `ScratchBuilder.Overwrite` and `Labels.Hash` we use an unsafe
conversion from string to byte slice. `Overwrite` is explicitly unsafe,
but for `Hash` this is a pure performance hack.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
