* Use zeropool.Pool to workaround SA6002
I built a tiny library called https://github.com/colega/zeropool to
workaround the SA6002 staticheck issue.
While searching for the references of that SA6002 staticheck issues on
Github first results was Prometheus itself, with quite a lot of ignores
of it.
This changes the usages of `sync.Pool` to `zeropool.Pool[T]` where a
pointer is not available.
Also added a benchmark for HeadAppender Append/Commit when series
already exist, which is one of the most usual cases IMO, as I didn't find
any.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.com>
* Improve BenchmarkHeadAppender with more cases
Signed-off-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.com>
* A little copying is better than a little dependency
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAAkCSZUG1c&t=9m28s
Signed-off-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.com>
* Fix imports order
Signed-off-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.com>
* Add license header
Signed-off-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.com>
* Copyright should be on one of the first 3 lines
Signed-off-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.com>
* Use require.Equal for testing
I don't depend on testify in my lib, but here we have it available.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.com>
* Avoid flaky test
Signed-off-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.com>
* Also use zeropool for pointsPool in engine.go
Signed-off-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.com>
---------
Signed-off-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.com>
We need to make sure that `tsdb_errors.NewMulti` handles the errors.Is()
calls properly, like it's done in grafana/dskit.
Also we need to check that `errors.Is(err, context.Canceled)`, not that
`err == context.Canceled`.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.com>
Test that blocks are not marked as "compaction failed" during shutdown.
This shouldn't happen but this test currently fails.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.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>
* Adds an affirmative log message for successful WAL repair
Signed-off-by: Vernon Miller <vernon.miller@grafana.com>
Signed-off-by: Vernon Miller <96601789+aldernero@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Ganesh Vernekar <ganeshvern@gmail.com>
Since the Target object was just created in this function, nobody else
has a reference to it and there are no concerns about it being modified
concurrently so we don't need to copy the value.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Includes a rewrite of `resolveConflictingExposedLabels` to use
`labels.Builder.Get`, which simplifies it considerably.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
This change introduces a new variable, SANITIZED_DOCKER_IMAGE_TAG, which
replaces any '+' characters in the original DOCKER_IMAGE_TAG with '_'
characters. This ensures better compatibility with semver standards,
particularly when using metadata in version tags.
Signed-off-by: Julien Pivotto <roidelapluie@o11y.eu>
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>
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>
During remote write, we call url.String() twice:
- to add the Endpoint() to the span
- to actually know where whe should send the request
This value does not change over time, and it's not really that
lightweight to calculate. I wrote this simple benchmark:
func BenchmarkURLString(b *testing.B) {
u, err := url.Parse("https://remote.write.com/api/v1")
require.NoError(b, err)
b.Run("string", func(b *testing.B) {
count := 0
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
count += len(u.String())
}
})
}
And the results are ~200ns/op, 80B/op, 3 allocs/op.
Yes, we're going to go to the network here, which is a huge amount of
resources compared to this, but still, on agents that send 500 requests
per second, that is 1500 wasteful allocations per second.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Zaytsev <mail@olegzaytsev.com>
