This was initially motivated by wanting to distribute the rule checker
tool under `tools/rule_checker`. However, this was not possible without
also distributing the LevelDB dynamic libraries because the tool
transitively depended on Levigo:
rule checker -> query layer -> tiered storage layer -> leveldb
This change separates external storage interfaces from the
implementation (tiered storage, leveldb storage, memory storage) by
putting them into separate packages:
- storage/metric: public, implementation-agnostic interfaces
- storage/metric/tiered: tiered storage implementation, including memory
and LevelDB storage.
I initially also considered splitting up the implementation into
separate packages for tiered storage, memory storage, and LevelDB
storage, but these are currently so intertwined that it would be another
major project in itself.
The query layers and most other parts of Prometheus now have notion of
the storage implementation anymore and just use whatever implementation
they get passed in via interfaces.
The rule_checker is now a static binary :)
Change-Id: I793bbf631a8648ca31790e7e772ecf9c2b92f7a0
The initial impetus for this was that it made unmarshalling sample
values much faster.
Other relevant benchmark changes in ns/op:
Benchmark old new speedup
==================================================================
BenchmarkMarshal 179170 127996 1.4x
BenchmarkUnmarshal 404984 132186 3.1x
BenchmarkMemoryGetValueAtTime 57801 50050 1.2x
BenchmarkMemoryGetBoundaryValues 64496 53194 1.2x
BenchmarkMemoryGetRangeValues 66585 54065 1.2x
BenchmarkStreamAdd 45.0 75.3 0.6x
BenchmarkAppendSample1 1157 1587 0.7x
BenchmarkAppendSample10 4090 4284 0.95x
BenchmarkAppendSample100 45660 44066 1.0x
BenchmarkAppendSample1000 579084 582380 1.0x
BenchmarkMemoryAppendRepeatingValues 22796594 22005502 1.0x
Overall, this gives us good speedups in the areas where they matter
most: decoding values from disk and accessing the memory storage (which
is also used for views).
Some of the smaller append examples take minimally longer, but the cost
seems to get amortized over larger appends, so I'm not worried about
these. Also, we're currently not bottlenecked on the write path and have
plenty of other optimizations available in that area if it becomes
necessary.
Memory allocations during appends don't change measurably at all.
Change-Id: I7dc7394edea09506976765551f35b138518db9e8
Julius Volz
Julius Volz