The 'ToFloat' method on integer histograms currently allocates new memory
each time it is called.
This commit adds an optional *FloatHistogram parameter that can be used
to reuse span and bucket slices. It is up to the caller to make sure the
input float histogram is not used anymore after the call.
Signed-off-by: Filip Petkovski <filip.petkovsky@gmail.com>
Add `ReduceResolution` method to `Histogram` and `FloatHistogram`
This takes the original `mergeToSchema` function and turns it into a more generic `reduceResolution` function, which is the building block for the new methods.
The methods will help with addressing #12864.
---------
Signed-off-by: Ziqi Zhao <zhaoziqi9146@gmail.com>
promql: Extend testing framework to support native histograms
This includes both the internal testing framework as well as the rules unit test feature of promtool.
This also adds a bunch of basic tests. Many of the code level tests can now be converted to tests within the framework, and more tests can be added easily.
---------
Signed-off-by: Harold Dost <h.dost@criteo.com>
Signed-off-by: Gregor Zeitlinger <gregor.zeitlinger@grafana.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Lang <stephen.lang@grafana.com>
Co-authored-by: Harold Dost <h.dost@criteo.com>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Lang <stephen.lang@grafana.com>
Co-authored-by: Gregor Zeitlinger <gregor.zeitlinger@grafana.com>
The bounds weren't really used so far, so no actual bug in the code so
far. But it's obviously confusing if the bounds returned by a
floatBucketIterator with a target schema different from the original
schema are wrong.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@grafana.com>
Handle more arithmetic operators and aggregators for native histograms
This includes operators for multiplication (formerly known as scaling), division, and subtraction. Plus aggregations for average and the avg_over_time function.
Stdvar and stddev will (for now) ignore histograms properly (rather than counting them but adding a 0 for them).
Signed-off-by: Jeanette Tan <jeanette.tan@grafana.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>
