Commit graph

28 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
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
beorn7 5b53aa1108 style: Replace else if cascades with switch
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>
2023-04-19 17:22:31 +02:00
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 e917202766 labels: make sure estimated size is not negative
Deleted labels are remembered, even if they were not in `base` or were
removed from `add`, so `base+add-del` could go negative.

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
2023-04-02 11:17:09 +01:00
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
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 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 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
Bryan Boreham 10b27dfb84 Simplify IndexReader.Series interface
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>
2022-12-19 15:22:09 +00:00
Bryan Boreham 2b8b8d9ac7 labels: new methods to work without access to internals
Without changing the definition of `labels.Labels`, add methods which
enable code using it to work without knowledge of the internals.

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
2022-12-19 15:22:09 +00:00
Bryan Boreham ea7345a09c labels: improve comment on Builder.Set
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
2022-12-19 15:22:09 +00:00
Bryan Boreham a19b369f9e labels: avoid lint warning on New()
This code is a bit cleaner.

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
2022-12-19 15:22:09 +00:00
Julien Pivotto bb323db613
Merge pull request #11074 from damnever/fix/datamodelvalidation
Validate the metric name and label names
2022-12-08 14:31:12 +01:00
Xiaochao Dong (@damnever) 9979024a30 Report error if the series contains invalid metric names or labels during scrape
Signed-off-by: Xiaochao Dong (@damnever) <the.xcdong@gmail.com>
2022-12-08 20:01:20 +08:00
Bryan Boreham 8d4140a06e labels: note that Hash may change
For performance reasons we may use a different implementation of Hash()
in future, so note this so callers can be warned.

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
2022-11-28 16:17:32 +00:00
Bryan Boreham 5421c778ba labels: in tests use labels.FromStrings
Replacing code which assumes the internal structure of `Labels`.

Add a convenience function `EmptyLabels()` which is more efficient than
calling `New()`.

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
2022-09-09 13:34:49 +02:00
Bryan Boreham 8b863c42dd
Optimise relabeling by re-using memory (#11147)
* model/relabel: Add benchmark

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>

* model/relabel: re-use Builder across relabels

Saves memory allocations.

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>

* labels.Builder: allow re-use of result slice

This reduces memory allocations where the caller has a suitable slice available.

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>

* model/relabel: re-use source values slice

To reduce memory allocations.

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>

* Unwind one change causing test failures

Restore original behaviour in PopulateLabels, where we must not overwrite the input set.

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>

* relabel: simplify values optimisation

Use a stack-based array for up to 16 source labels, which will be the
vast majority of cases.

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>

* lint

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
2022-08-19 15:27:52 +05:30
Bryan Boreham 2e2c014d52
Labels: optimise creation of signature with/without labels (#10667)
* Labels: create signature with/without labels

Instead of creating a new Labels slice then converting to signature,
go directly to the signature and save time.

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>

* Labels: refactor Builder tests

Have one test with a range of cases, and have them check the final
output rather than checking the internal structure of the Builder.

Also add a couple of cases where the value is "", which should be
interpreted as 'delete'.

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>

* Labels: add 'Keep' function to Builder

This lets us replace `Labels.WithLabels` with the more general `Builder`.

In `engine.resultMetric()` we can call `Keep()` instead of checking
and calling `Del()`.

Avoid calling `Sort()` in `Builder.Labels()` if we didn't add anything,
so that `Keep()` has the same performance as `WithLabels()`.

Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
2022-06-07 10:08:27 +05:30
Łukasz Mierzwa b11062bfcc
Don't count added labels when initializing slice (#10756)
This was added in #10749 but based on feedback it might be over-allocating so worth removing.

Signed-off-by: Łukasz Mierzwa <l.mierzwa@gmail.com>
2022-06-04 08:45:02 +05:30
Łukasz Mierzwa 08262454a3
Preallocate Labels in labels.Builder (#10749)
This tries to avoid re-allocations of labels slice since we know possible max size

Signed-off-by: Łukasz Mierzwa <l.mierzwa@gmail.com>
2022-05-25 16:22:47 +02:00
Łukasz Mierzwa 89de30a0b7
Avoid reallocating map in MatchLabels (#10715)
We know the max size of our map so we can create it with that information and avoid extra allocations

Signed-off-by: Łukasz Mierzwa <l.mierzwa@gmail.com>
2022-05-20 10:18:31 +02:00
Nick Pillitteri 53ac9d6d66
Compare equality of label.Label structs directly (#10427)
* labels.Equal benchmark for equal, not equal, and differing lengths

Signed-off-by: Nick Pillitteri <nick.pillitteri@grafana.com>

* Compare equality of label.Label structs directly

Compare the structs using `==` instead of the name and value
of each label. This is functionally equivalent and about ~10%
faster in my testing.

Signed-off-by: Nick Pillitteri <nick.pillitteri@grafana.com>

* Use longer more realistic names and values in benchmark

Signed-off-by: Nick Pillitteri <nick.pillitteri@grafana.com>
2022-03-15 00:30:04 +01:00
beorn7 c954cd9d1d Move packages out of deprecated pkg directory
This creates a new `model` directory and moves all data-model related
packages over there:
  exemplar labels relabel rulefmt textparse timestamp value

All the others are more or less utilities and have been moved to `util`:
  gate logging modetimevfs pool runtime

Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@grafana.com>
2021-11-09 08:03:10 +01:00
Renamed from pkg/labels/labels.go (Browse further)