This is an optimization on the existing append in OOOChunk.
What we've been doing so far is find the place inside the out-of-order
slice where the new sample should go in and then place it there and move
any samples to the right if necessary. This is OK but requires a binary
search every time the slice is bigger than 0.
The optimization is opinionated and suggests that although out-of-order
samples can be out-of-order amongst themselves they'll probably be in
order thus we can probably optimistically append at the end and if not
do the binary search.
OOOChunks are capped to 30 samples by default so this is a small
optimization but everything adds up, specially if you handle many active
timeseries with out-of-order samples.
Signed-off-by: Jesus Vazquez <jesus.vazquez@grafana.com>
Signed-off-by: Jesus Vazquez <jesusvazquez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Ganesh Vernekar <ganeshvern@gmail.com>
* adapt code.go and write_handler.go to support float histograms
* adapt watcher.go to support float histograms
* wip adapt queue_manager.go to support float histograms
* address comments for metrics in queue_manager.go
* set test cases for queue manager
* use same counts for histograms and float histograms
* refactor createHistograms tests
* fix float histograms ref in watcher_test.go
* address PR comments
Signed-off-by: Marc Tuduri <marctc@protonmail.com>
This is to check if a gauge histogram can be appended to the given chunk.
If not, it tells what changes to make to the chunk and the histogram
if possible.
Signed-off-by: Ganesh Vernekar <ganeshvern@gmail.com>
In the head and in v1 postings on disk, it makes no difference whether
postings are sorted. Only for v2 does the code step through in order.
So, move the sorting to where it is required, and thus skip it entirely
in the head.
Label values in on-disk blocks are already sorted, but `slices.Sort` is
very fast on already-sorted data so we don't bother checking.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
This allocates memory for all the returned values, which skews the
result. We aren't trying to benchmark `ExpandPostings`, so just step
through all the values without storing them to consume them.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Previously all the postings constructed were consumed on the first
iteration, so subsequent iterations did no work.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
When out-of-order is enabled, queries go through both Head and OOOHead,
and they both execute the same PostingsForMatchers call, as memSeries
are shared for both.
In some cases these calls can be heavy, and also frequent. We can
deduplicate those calls by using the PostingsForMatchers cache that we
already use for query sharding.
The usage of this cache can skip a newly appended series in the results
for the duration of the ttl.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.com>
Extends Appender.AppendHistogram function to accept the FloatHistogram. TSDB supports appending, querying, WAL replay, for this new type of histogram.
Signed-off-by: Marc Tudurí <marctc@protonmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ganesh Vernekar <ganeshvern@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ganesh Vernekar <ganeshvern@gmail.com>
Instead of passing in a `ScratchBuilder` and `Labels`, just pass the
builder and the caller can extract labels from it. In many cases the
caller didn't use the Labels value anyway.
Now in `Labels.ScratchBuilder` we need a slightly different API: one
to assign what will be the result, instead of overwriting some other
`Labels`. This is safer and easier to reason about.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
