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>
In other words: Instead of having a “polymorphous” `Point` that can
either contain a float value or a histogram value, use an `FPoint` for
floats and an `HPoint` for histograms.
This seemingly small change has a _lot_ of repercussions throughout
the codebase.
The idea here is to avoid the increase in size of `Point` arrays that
happened after native histograms had been added.
The higher-level data structures (`Sample`, `Series`, etc.) are still
“polymorphous”. The same idea could be applied to them, but at each
step the trade-offs needed to be evaluated.
The idea with this change is to do the minimum necessary to get back
to pre-histogram performance for functions that do not touch
histograms. Here are comparisons for the `changes` function. The test
data doesn't include histograms yet. Ideally, there would be no change
in the benchmark result at all.
First runtime v2.39 compared to directly prior to this commit:
```
name old time/op new time/op delta
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_one[1d]),steps=1-16 391µs ± 2% 542µs ± 1% +38.58% (p=0.000 n=9+8)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_one[1d]),steps=10-16 452µs ± 2% 617µs ± 2% +36.48% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_one[1d]),steps=100-16 1.12ms ± 1% 1.36ms ± 2% +21.58% (p=0.000 n=8+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_one[1d]),steps=1000-16 7.83ms ± 1% 8.94ms ± 1% +14.21% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_ten[1d]),steps=1-16 2.98ms ± 0% 3.30ms ± 1% +10.67% (p=0.000 n=9+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_ten[1d]),steps=10-16 3.66ms ± 1% 4.10ms ± 1% +11.82% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_ten[1d]),steps=100-16 10.5ms ± 0% 11.8ms ± 1% +12.50% (p=0.000 n=8+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_ten[1d]),steps=1000-16 77.6ms ± 1% 87.4ms ± 1% +12.63% (p=0.000 n=9+9)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_hundred[1d]),steps=1-16 30.4ms ± 2% 32.8ms ± 1% +8.01% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_hundred[1d]),steps=10-16 37.1ms ± 2% 40.6ms ± 2% +9.64% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_hundred[1d]),steps=100-16 105ms ± 1% 117ms ± 1% +11.69% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_hundred[1d]),steps=1000-16 783ms ± 3% 876ms ± 1% +11.83% (p=0.000 n=9+10)
```
And then runtime v2.39 compared to after this commit:
```
name old time/op new time/op delta
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_one[1d]),steps=1-16 391µs ± 2% 547µs ± 1% +39.84% (p=0.000 n=9+8)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_one[1d]),steps=10-16 452µs ± 2% 616µs ± 2% +36.15% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_one[1d]),steps=100-16 1.12ms ± 1% 1.26ms ± 1% +12.20% (p=0.000 n=8+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_one[1d]),steps=1000-16 7.83ms ± 1% 7.95ms ± 1% +1.59% (p=0.000 n=10+8)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_ten[1d]),steps=1-16 2.98ms ± 0% 3.38ms ± 2% +13.49% (p=0.000 n=9+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_ten[1d]),steps=10-16 3.66ms ± 1% 4.02ms ± 1% +9.80% (p=0.000 n=10+9)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_ten[1d]),steps=100-16 10.5ms ± 0% 10.8ms ± 1% +3.08% (p=0.000 n=8+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_ten[1d]),steps=1000-16 77.6ms ± 1% 78.1ms ± 1% +0.58% (p=0.035 n=9+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_hundred[1d]),steps=1-16 30.4ms ± 2% 33.5ms ± 4% +10.18% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_hundred[1d]),steps=10-16 37.1ms ± 2% 40.0ms ± 1% +7.98% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_hundred[1d]),steps=100-16 105ms ± 1% 107ms ± 1% +1.92% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
RangeQuery/expr=changes(a_hundred[1d]),steps=1000-16 783ms ± 3% 775ms ± 1% -1.02% (p=0.019 n=9+9)
```
In summary, the runtime doesn't really improve with this change for
queries with just a few steps. For queries with many steps, this
commit essentially reinstates the old performance. This is good
because the many-step queries are the one that matter most (longest
absolute runtime).
In terms of allocations, though, this commit doesn't make a dent at
all (numbers not shown). The reason is that most of the allocations
happen in the sampleRingIterator (in the storage package), which has
to be addressed in a separate commit.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@grafana.com>
This commit adds a new 'keep_firing_for' field to Prometheus alerting
rules. The 'resolve_delay' field specifies the minimum amount of time
that an alert should remain firing, even if the expression does not
return any results.
This feature was discussed at a previous dev summit, and it was
determined that a feature like this would be useful in order to allow
the expression time to stabilize and prevent confusing resolved messages
from being propagated through Alertmanager.
This approach is simpler than having two PromQL queries, as was
sometimes discussed, and it should be easy to implement.
This commit does not include tests for the 'resolve_delay' field. This
is intentional, as the purpose of this commit is to gather comments on
the proposed design of the 'resolve_delay' field before implementing
tests. Once the design of the 'resolve_delay' field has been finalized,
a follow-up commit will be submitted with tests."
See https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/issues/11570
Signed-off-by: Julien Pivotto <roidelapluie@o11y.eu>
This will allow correlation of executed rule queries with their associated rule names and type
Signed-off-by: Danny Kopping <danny.kopping@grafana.com>
And a number of `EmptyLabels()` instead of `nil`.
Replacing code which assumes the internal structure of `Labels`.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
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>
* Testify: move to require
Moving testify to require to fail tests early in case of errors.
Signed-off-by: Julien Pivotto <roidelapluie@inuits.eu>
* More moves
Signed-off-by: Julien Pivotto <roidelapluie@inuits.eu>
* Refactor test assertions
This pull request gets rid of assert.True where possible to use
fine-grained assertions.
Signed-off-by: Julien Pivotto <roidelapluie@inuits.eu>
Since we use ActiveQueryTracker to check for concurrency in
d992c36b3a it does not make sense to keep
the MaxConcurrent value as an option of the PromQL engine.
This pull request removes it from the PromQL engine options, sets the
max concurrent metric to -1 if there is no active query tracker, and use
the value of the active query tracker otherwise.
It removes dead code and also will inform people who import the promql
package that we made that change, as it breaks the EngineOpts struct.
Signed-off-by: Julien Pivotto <roidelapluie@inuits.eu>
Fixes https://github.com/prometheus/common/issues/36
Move logic handling this into the labels package,
so all the cases are handled in one place and we're
less likely to have this come up again.
Signed-off-by: Brian Brazil <brian.brazil@robustperception.io>
* Use testutil in rules subpackage
* Fix manager test
* Use testutil in rules subpackage
* Fix manager test
* Fix rebase
* Change to testutil for applyConfig tests
