prometheus/tsdb/labels/selector.go

110 lines
3.3 KiB
Go
Raw Normal View History

2017-04-10 18:59:45 +00:00
// Copyright 2017 The Prometheus Authors
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
//
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
//
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
// limitations under the License.
2016-12-21 08:39:01 +00:00
package labels
import (
Be smarter in how we look at matchers. (#572) * Add unittests for PostingsForMatcher. * Selector methods are all stateless, don't need a reference. * Be smarter in how we look at matchers. Look at all matchers to see if a label can be empty. Optimise Not handling, so i!="2" is a simple lookup rather than an inverse postings list. All all the Withouts together, rather than having to subtract each from all postings. Change the pre-expand the postings logic to always do it before doing a Without only. Don't do that if it's already a list. The initial goal here was that the oft-seen pattern i=~"something.+",i!="foo",i!="bar" becomes more efficient. benchmark old ns/op new ns/op delta BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1"-4 5888 6160 +4.62% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j="foo"-4 7190 6640 -7.65% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/j="foo",n="1"-4 6038 5923 -1.90% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j!="foo"-4 6030884 4850525 -19.57% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".*"-4 887377940 230329137 -74.04% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".+"-4 490316101 319931758 -34.75% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~""-4 594961991 130279313 -78.10% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i!=""-4 537542388 318751015 -40.70% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",j="foo"-4 10460243 8565195 -18.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",i!="2",j="foo"-4 44964267 8561546 -80.96% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i!="",j="foo"-4 42244885 29137737 -31.03% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",j="foo"-4 35285834 32774584 -7.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~"1.+",j="foo"-4 8951047 8379024 -6.39% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!="2",j="foo"-4 63813335 30672688 -51.93% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!~"2.*",j="foo"-4 45381112 44924397 -1.01% Signed-off-by: Brian Brazil <brian.brazil@robustperception.io>
2019-04-09 10:59:45 +00:00
"fmt"
"regexp"
)
2016-12-21 08:39:01 +00:00
// Selector holds constraints for matching against a label set.
type Selector []Matcher
// Matches returns whether the labels satisfy all matchers.
func (s Selector) Matches(labels Labels) bool {
for _, m := range s {
if v := labels.Get(m.Name()); !m.Matches(v) {
return false
}
}
return true
}
// Matcher specifies a constraint for the value of a label.
type Matcher interface {
// Name returns the label name the matcher should apply to.
Name() string
// Matches checks whether a value fulfills the constraints.
Matches(v string) bool
Be smarter in how we look at matchers. (#572) * Add unittests for PostingsForMatcher. * Selector methods are all stateless, don't need a reference. * Be smarter in how we look at matchers. Look at all matchers to see if a label can be empty. Optimise Not handling, so i!="2" is a simple lookup rather than an inverse postings list. All all the Withouts together, rather than having to subtract each from all postings. Change the pre-expand the postings logic to always do it before doing a Without only. Don't do that if it's already a list. The initial goal here was that the oft-seen pattern i=~"something.+",i!="foo",i!="bar" becomes more efficient. benchmark old ns/op new ns/op delta BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1"-4 5888 6160 +4.62% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j="foo"-4 7190 6640 -7.65% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/j="foo",n="1"-4 6038 5923 -1.90% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j!="foo"-4 6030884 4850525 -19.57% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".*"-4 887377940 230329137 -74.04% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".+"-4 490316101 319931758 -34.75% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~""-4 594961991 130279313 -78.10% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i!=""-4 537542388 318751015 -40.70% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",j="foo"-4 10460243 8565195 -18.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",i!="2",j="foo"-4 44964267 8561546 -80.96% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i!="",j="foo"-4 42244885 29137737 -31.03% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",j="foo"-4 35285834 32774584 -7.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~"1.+",j="foo"-4 8951047 8379024 -6.39% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!="2",j="foo"-4 63813335 30672688 -51.93% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!~"2.*",j="foo"-4 45381112 44924397 -1.01% Signed-off-by: Brian Brazil <brian.brazil@robustperception.io>
2019-04-09 10:59:45 +00:00
// String returns a human readable matcher.
String() string
2016-12-21 08:39:01 +00:00
}
2017-03-19 16:05:01 +00:00
// EqualMatcher matches on equality.
type EqualMatcher struct {
2016-12-28 10:02:19 +00:00
name, value string
2016-12-21 08:39:01 +00:00
}
2017-03-19 16:05:01 +00:00
// Name implements Matcher interface.
Be smarter in how we look at matchers. (#572) * Add unittests for PostingsForMatcher. * Selector methods are all stateless, don't need a reference. * Be smarter in how we look at matchers. Look at all matchers to see if a label can be empty. Optimise Not handling, so i!="2" is a simple lookup rather than an inverse postings list. All all the Withouts together, rather than having to subtract each from all postings. Change the pre-expand the postings logic to always do it before doing a Without only. Don't do that if it's already a list. The initial goal here was that the oft-seen pattern i=~"something.+",i!="foo",i!="bar" becomes more efficient. benchmark old ns/op new ns/op delta BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1"-4 5888 6160 +4.62% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j="foo"-4 7190 6640 -7.65% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/j="foo",n="1"-4 6038 5923 -1.90% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j!="foo"-4 6030884 4850525 -19.57% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".*"-4 887377940 230329137 -74.04% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".+"-4 490316101 319931758 -34.75% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~""-4 594961991 130279313 -78.10% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i!=""-4 537542388 318751015 -40.70% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",j="foo"-4 10460243 8565195 -18.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",i!="2",j="foo"-4 44964267 8561546 -80.96% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i!="",j="foo"-4 42244885 29137737 -31.03% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",j="foo"-4 35285834 32774584 -7.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~"1.+",j="foo"-4 8951047 8379024 -6.39% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!="2",j="foo"-4 63813335 30672688 -51.93% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!~"2.*",j="foo"-4 45381112 44924397 -1.01% Signed-off-by: Brian Brazil <brian.brazil@robustperception.io>
2019-04-09 10:59:45 +00:00
func (m EqualMatcher) Name() string { return m.name }
2017-03-19 16:05:01 +00:00
// Matches implements Matcher interface.
Be smarter in how we look at matchers. (#572) * Add unittests for PostingsForMatcher. * Selector methods are all stateless, don't need a reference. * Be smarter in how we look at matchers. Look at all matchers to see if a label can be empty. Optimise Not handling, so i!="2" is a simple lookup rather than an inverse postings list. All all the Withouts together, rather than having to subtract each from all postings. Change the pre-expand the postings logic to always do it before doing a Without only. Don't do that if it's already a list. The initial goal here was that the oft-seen pattern i=~"something.+",i!="foo",i!="bar" becomes more efficient. benchmark old ns/op new ns/op delta BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1"-4 5888 6160 +4.62% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j="foo"-4 7190 6640 -7.65% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/j="foo",n="1"-4 6038 5923 -1.90% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j!="foo"-4 6030884 4850525 -19.57% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".*"-4 887377940 230329137 -74.04% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".+"-4 490316101 319931758 -34.75% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~""-4 594961991 130279313 -78.10% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i!=""-4 537542388 318751015 -40.70% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",j="foo"-4 10460243 8565195 -18.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",i!="2",j="foo"-4 44964267 8561546 -80.96% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i!="",j="foo"-4 42244885 29137737 -31.03% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",j="foo"-4 35285834 32774584 -7.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~"1.+",j="foo"-4 8951047 8379024 -6.39% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!="2",j="foo"-4 63813335 30672688 -51.93% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!~"2.*",j="foo"-4 45381112 44924397 -1.01% Signed-off-by: Brian Brazil <brian.brazil@robustperception.io>
2019-04-09 10:59:45 +00:00
func (m EqualMatcher) Matches(v string) bool { return v == m.value }
// String implements Matcher interface.
func (m EqualMatcher) String() string { return fmt.Sprintf("%s=%q", m.name, m.value) }
2016-12-21 08:39:01 +00:00
2017-04-05 12:14:30 +00:00
// Value returns the matched value.
Be smarter in how we look at matchers. (#572) * Add unittests for PostingsForMatcher. * Selector methods are all stateless, don't need a reference. * Be smarter in how we look at matchers. Look at all matchers to see if a label can be empty. Optimise Not handling, so i!="2" is a simple lookup rather than an inverse postings list. All all the Withouts together, rather than having to subtract each from all postings. Change the pre-expand the postings logic to always do it before doing a Without only. Don't do that if it's already a list. The initial goal here was that the oft-seen pattern i=~"something.+",i!="foo",i!="bar" becomes more efficient. benchmark old ns/op new ns/op delta BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1"-4 5888 6160 +4.62% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j="foo"-4 7190 6640 -7.65% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/j="foo",n="1"-4 6038 5923 -1.90% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j!="foo"-4 6030884 4850525 -19.57% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".*"-4 887377940 230329137 -74.04% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".+"-4 490316101 319931758 -34.75% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~""-4 594961991 130279313 -78.10% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i!=""-4 537542388 318751015 -40.70% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",j="foo"-4 10460243 8565195 -18.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",i!="2",j="foo"-4 44964267 8561546 -80.96% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i!="",j="foo"-4 42244885 29137737 -31.03% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",j="foo"-4 35285834 32774584 -7.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~"1.+",j="foo"-4 8951047 8379024 -6.39% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!="2",j="foo"-4 63813335 30672688 -51.93% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!~"2.*",j="foo"-4 45381112 44924397 -1.01% Signed-off-by: Brian Brazil <brian.brazil@robustperception.io>
2019-04-09 10:59:45 +00:00
func (m EqualMatcher) Value() string { return m.value }
2017-04-05 12:14:30 +00:00
2016-12-21 08:39:01 +00:00
// NewEqualMatcher returns a new matcher matching an exact label value.
func NewEqualMatcher(name, value string) Matcher {
2016-12-28 10:02:19 +00:00
return &EqualMatcher{name: name, value: value}
2016-12-21 08:39:01 +00:00
}
type RegexpMatcher struct {
2016-12-21 08:39:01 +00:00
name string
re *regexp.Regexp
}
func (m RegexpMatcher) Name() string { return m.name }
func (m RegexpMatcher) Matches(v string) bool { return m.re.MatchString(v) }
func (m RegexpMatcher) String() string { return fmt.Sprintf("%s=~%q", m.name, m.re.String()) }
func (m RegexpMatcher) Value() string { return m.re.String() }
2016-12-21 08:39:01 +00:00
// NewRegexpMatcher returns a new matcher verifying that a value matches
// the regular expression pattern.
func NewRegexpMatcher(name, pattern string) (Matcher, error) {
re, err := regexp.Compile(pattern)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
return &RegexpMatcher{name: name, re: re}, nil
2016-12-21 08:39:01 +00:00
}
// NewMustRegexpMatcher returns a new matcher verifying that a value matches
// the regular expression pattern. Will panic if the pattern is not a valid
// regular expression.
func NewMustRegexpMatcher(name, pattern string) Matcher {
re, err := regexp.Compile(pattern)
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
return &RegexpMatcher{name: name, re: re}
}
Be smarter in how we look at matchers. (#572) * Add unittests for PostingsForMatcher. * Selector methods are all stateless, don't need a reference. * Be smarter in how we look at matchers. Look at all matchers to see if a label can be empty. Optimise Not handling, so i!="2" is a simple lookup rather than an inverse postings list. All all the Withouts together, rather than having to subtract each from all postings. Change the pre-expand the postings logic to always do it before doing a Without only. Don't do that if it's already a list. The initial goal here was that the oft-seen pattern i=~"something.+",i!="foo",i!="bar" becomes more efficient. benchmark old ns/op new ns/op delta BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1"-4 5888 6160 +4.62% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j="foo"-4 7190 6640 -7.65% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/j="foo",n="1"-4 6038 5923 -1.90% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j!="foo"-4 6030884 4850525 -19.57% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".*"-4 887377940 230329137 -74.04% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".+"-4 490316101 319931758 -34.75% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~""-4 594961991 130279313 -78.10% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i!=""-4 537542388 318751015 -40.70% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",j="foo"-4 10460243 8565195 -18.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",i!="2",j="foo"-4 44964267 8561546 -80.96% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i!="",j="foo"-4 42244885 29137737 -31.03% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",j="foo"-4 35285834 32774584 -7.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~"1.+",j="foo"-4 8951047 8379024 -6.39% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!="2",j="foo"-4 63813335 30672688 -51.93% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!~"2.*",j="foo"-4 45381112 44924397 -1.01% Signed-off-by: Brian Brazil <brian.brazil@robustperception.io>
2019-04-09 10:59:45 +00:00
// NotMatcher inverts the matching result for a matcher.
type NotMatcher struct {
2016-12-21 08:39:01 +00:00
Matcher
}
Be smarter in how we look at matchers. (#572) * Add unittests for PostingsForMatcher. * Selector methods are all stateless, don't need a reference. * Be smarter in how we look at matchers. Look at all matchers to see if a label can be empty. Optimise Not handling, so i!="2" is a simple lookup rather than an inverse postings list. All all the Withouts together, rather than having to subtract each from all postings. Change the pre-expand the postings logic to always do it before doing a Without only. Don't do that if it's already a list. The initial goal here was that the oft-seen pattern i=~"something.+",i!="foo",i!="bar" becomes more efficient. benchmark old ns/op new ns/op delta BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1"-4 5888 6160 +4.62% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j="foo"-4 7190 6640 -7.65% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/j="foo",n="1"-4 6038 5923 -1.90% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j!="foo"-4 6030884 4850525 -19.57% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".*"-4 887377940 230329137 -74.04% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".+"-4 490316101 319931758 -34.75% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~""-4 594961991 130279313 -78.10% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i!=""-4 537542388 318751015 -40.70% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",j="foo"-4 10460243 8565195 -18.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",i!="2",j="foo"-4 44964267 8561546 -80.96% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i!="",j="foo"-4 42244885 29137737 -31.03% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",j="foo"-4 35285834 32774584 -7.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~"1.+",j="foo"-4 8951047 8379024 -6.39% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!="2",j="foo"-4 63813335 30672688 -51.93% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!~"2.*",j="foo"-4 45381112 44924397 -1.01% Signed-off-by: Brian Brazil <brian.brazil@robustperception.io>
2019-04-09 10:59:45 +00:00
func (m NotMatcher) Matches(v string) bool { return !m.Matcher.Matches(v) }
func (m NotMatcher) String() string { return fmt.Sprintf("not(%s)", m.Matcher.String()) }
2016-12-21 08:39:01 +00:00
// Not inverts the matcher's matching result.
func Not(m Matcher) Matcher {
Be smarter in how we look at matchers. (#572) * Add unittests for PostingsForMatcher. * Selector methods are all stateless, don't need a reference. * Be smarter in how we look at matchers. Look at all matchers to see if a label can be empty. Optimise Not handling, so i!="2" is a simple lookup rather than an inverse postings list. All all the Withouts together, rather than having to subtract each from all postings. Change the pre-expand the postings logic to always do it before doing a Without only. Don't do that if it's already a list. The initial goal here was that the oft-seen pattern i=~"something.+",i!="foo",i!="bar" becomes more efficient. benchmark old ns/op new ns/op delta BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1"-4 5888 6160 +4.62% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j="foo"-4 7190 6640 -7.65% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/j="foo",n="1"-4 6038 5923 -1.90% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",j!="foo"-4 6030884 4850525 -19.57% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".*"-4 887377940 230329137 -74.04% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~".+"-4 490316101 319931758 -34.75% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i=~""-4 594961991 130279313 -78.10% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/i!=""-4 537542388 318751015 -40.70% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",j="foo"-4 10460243 8565195 -18.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".*",i!="2",j="foo"-4 44964267 8561546 -80.96% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i!="",j="foo"-4 42244885 29137737 -31.03% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",j="foo"-4 35285834 32774584 -7.12% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~"1.+",j="foo"-4 8951047 8379024 -6.39% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!="2",j="foo"-4 63813335 30672688 -51.93% BenchmarkHeadPostingForMatchers/n="1",i=~".+",i!~"2.*",j="foo"-4 45381112 44924397 -1.01% Signed-off-by: Brian Brazil <brian.brazil@robustperception.io>
2019-04-09 10:59:45 +00:00
return &NotMatcher{m}
2016-12-21 08:39:01 +00:00
}