Commit graph

18 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Bryan Boreham 1e16c60bae labels: improve Get method for stringlabels build (#12485)
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>
2023-07-03 20:34:35 +01:00
Bryan Boreham 19c9db3c07 labels: faster Compare function when using -tags stringlabels (#12451)
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>
2023-07-03 20:34:29 +01:00
Bryan Boreham a073e04a9b
Merge pull request #12366 from prometheus/release-2.44
Merge release 2.44 back to main
2023-05-16 18:06:29 +01:00
Bryan Boreham 7a48a266b6
labels: respect Set after Del in Builder (#12322)
* 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>
2023-05-03 11:59:27 +01:00
cui fliter 276ca6a883 fix some comments
Signed-off-by: cui fliter <imcusg@gmail.com>
2023-04-25 14:19:16 +08:00
Bryan Boreham 1801cd4196 labels: small optimization to stringlabels
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>
2023-04-14 15:06:57 +00:00
Bryan Boreham 10cc60af01 labels: add ScratchBuilder.Overwrite for slice implementation
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>
2023-04-13 11:07:54 +00:00
Ganesh Vernekar 5588cab8b2
Merge pull request #12173 from bboreham/builder-no-empty-labels
labels: simplify call to get Labels from Builder
2023-04-04 12:02:55 +05:30
Bryan Boreham ee1157c14a labels: shrink stack arrays in Builder.Range
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>
2023-03-22 17:14:43 +00:00
Bryan Boreham b987afa7ef labels: simplify call to get Labels from Builder
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>
2023-03-22 17:05:20 +00:00
Bryan Boreham 3743d87c56 labels: cope with mutating Builder during Range call
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>
2023-03-16 13:28:15 +00:00
Julien Pivotto 5583c77b3a
Merge pull request #12095 from damnever/unnecessary-sort
Remove unnecessary sort
2023-03-09 13:12:02 +01:00
Xiaochao Dong (@damnever) 36fc1158b5 Remove unnecessary sort
Signed-off-by: Xiaochao Dong (@damnever) <the.xcdong@gmail.com>
2023-03-08 15:36:02 +08:00
Bryan Boreham d740abf0c6 model/labels: add Get and Range to Builder
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>
2023-03-07 17:20:54 +00:00
Bryan Boreham ff993b279a
Merge pull request #12073 from bboreham/slices-sort2
labels: use slices.Sort for better performance
2023-03-07 09:31:50 +00:00
Bryan Boreham 38c6d3da9f labels: use slices.Sort for better performance
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>
2023-03-06 18:22:49 +00:00
Bryan Boreham 30297f0d9b stringlabels: size buffer for added labels
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>
2023-03-06 16:29:21 +00:00
Bryan Boreham 6136ae67e0 labels: shrink by making internals a single string
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>
2023-02-22 15:34:23 +00:00