* Optimize labelValues when matchers select small number of series.
Signed-off-by: Peter Štibraný <pstibrany@gmail.com>
* Address review feedback.
Signed-off-by: Peter Štibraný <pstibrany@gmail.com>
* Add missing p.Err()
Signed-off-by: Peter Štibraný <pstibrany@gmail.com>
* Reuse existing slice with all label values.
Signed-off-by: Peter Štibraný <pstibrany@gmail.com>
* Simplify check for expanded postings.
Signed-off-by: Peter Štibraný <pstibrany@gmail.com>
* Fix comment.
Signed-off-by: Peter Štibraný <pstibrany@gmail.com>
---------
Signed-off-by: Peter Štibraný <pstibrany@gmail.com>
Use AppendableGauge to detect corrupt chunk with gauge histograms.
Detect if first sample is a gauge but the chunk is not set up to contain
gauge histograms.
Signed-off-by: György Krajcsovits <gyorgy.krajcsovits@grafana.com>
Signed-off-by: George Krajcsovits <krajorama@users.noreply.github.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>
We haven't updated golint-ci in our CI yet, but this commit prepares
for that.
There are a lot of new warnings, and it is mostly because the "revive"
linter got updated. I agree with most of the new warnings, mostly
around not naming unused function parameters (although it is justified
in some cases for documentation purposes – while things like mocks are
a good example where not naming the parameter is clearer).
I'm pretty upset about the "empty block" warning to include `for`
loops. It's such a common pattern to do something in the head of the
`for` loop and then have an empty block. There is still an open issue
about this: https://github.com/mgechev/revive/issues/810 I have
disabled "revive" altogether in files where empty blocks are used
excessively, and I have made the effort to add individual
`// nolint:revive` where empty blocks are used just once or twice.
It's borderline noisy, though, but let's go with it for now.
I should mention that none of the "empty block" warnings for `for`
loop bodies were legitimate.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@grafana.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>
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>
This necessitates a change to the `tsdb.IndexReader` interface:
`index.Reader` is used from multiple goroutines concurrently, so we
can't have state in it.
We do retain a `ScratchBuilder` in `blockBaseSeriesSet` which is
iterator-like.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Re-use previous memory if it is already of the correct type.
Also turn two levels of function closure into a single object that
holds the required data.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Patterned after `Chunk.Iterator()`: pass the old iterator in so it
can be re-used to avoid allocating a new object.
(This commit does not do any re-use; it is just changing all the method
signatures so re-use is possible in later commits.)
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Inverting the test for chunks deleted by tombstones makes all three
rejections consistent, and also avoids the case where a chunk is
excluded but still causes `trimFront` or `trimBack` to be set.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
This reduces garbage, hence goes faster, when a short time range is
required compared to the amount of chunks in the block. For example
recording rules and alerts often look only at the last few minutes.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Use new experimental package `golang.org/x/exp/slices`.
slices.Sort works on values that are directly comparable, like ints,
so avoids the overhad of an interface call to `.Less()`.
Left tests unchanged, because they don't need the speed and it may be
a cross-check that slices.Sort gives the same answer.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
