On a 32 bit architecture the size of int is 32 bits. Thus converting from
int64, uint64 can overflow it and flip the sign.
Try for yourself in playground:
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
x := int64(0x1F0000001)
y := int64(1)
z := int32(x - y) // numerically this is 0x1F0000000
fmt.Printf("%v\n", z)
}
Prints -268435456 as if x was smaller.
Followup to #12650
Signed-off-by: György Krajcsovits <gyorgy.krajcsovits@grafana.com>
Improve promtool tsdb analyze
- Make it more suitable for variable size float chunks.
- Add support for histogram chunks.
---------
Signed-off-by: Ziqi Zhao <zhaoziqi9146@gmail.com>
* support specifying series matchers to analyze tsdb
Signed-off-by: Ben Ye <benye@amazon.com>
* fix cli docs
Signed-off-by: Ben Ye <benye@amazon.com>
---------
Signed-off-by: Ben Ye <benye@amazon.com>
Header name is `Retry-Attempt`, only set when >0.
Signed-off-by: Marc Tuduri <marctc@protonmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paschalis Tsilias <paschalis.tsilias@grafana.com>
Return annotations (warnings and infos) from PromQL queries
This generalizes the warnings we have already used before (but only for problems with remote read) as "annotations".
Annotations can be warnings or infos (the latter could be false positives). We do not treat them different in the API for now and return them all as "warnings". It would be easy to distinguish them and return infos separately, should that appear useful in the future.
The new annotations are then used to create a lot of warnings or infos during PromQL evaluations. Partially these are things we have wanted for a long time (e.g. inform the user that they have applied `rate` to a metric that doesn't look like a counter), but the new native histograms have created even more needs for those annotations (e.g. if a query tries to aggregate float numbers with histograms).
The annotations added here are not yet complete. A prominent example would be a warning about a range too short for a rate calculation. But such a warnings is more tricky to create with good fidelity and we will tackle it later.
Another TODO is to take annotations into account when evaluating recording rules.
---------
Signed-off-by: Jeanette Tan <jeanette.tan@grafana.com>
promql: Extend testing framework to support native histograms
This includes both the internal testing framework as well as the rules unit test feature of promtool.
This also adds a bunch of basic tests. Many of the code level tests can now be converted to tests within the framework, and more tests can be added easily.
---------
Signed-off-by: Harold Dost <h.dost@criteo.com>
Signed-off-by: Gregor Zeitlinger <gregor.zeitlinger@grafana.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Lang <stephen.lang@grafana.com>
Co-authored-by: Harold Dost <h.dost@criteo.com>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Lang <stephen.lang@grafana.com>
Co-authored-by: Gregor Zeitlinger <gregor.zeitlinger@grafana.com>
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>
We haven't updated golint-ci in our CI yet, but this commit prepares
for that.
There are a lot of new warnings, and it is mostly because the "revive"
linter got updated. I agree with most of the new warnings, mostly
around not naming unused function parameters (although it is justified
in some cases for documentation purposes – while things like mocks are
a good example where not naming the parameter is clearer).
I'm pretty upset about the "empty block" warning to include `for`
loops. It's such a common pattern to do something in the head of the
`for` loop and then have an empty block. There is still an open issue
about this: https://github.com/mgechev/revive/issues/810 I have
disabled "revive" altogether in files where empty blocks are used
excessively, and I have made the effort to add individual
`// nolint:revive` where empty blocks are used just once or twice.
It's borderline noisy, though, but let's go with it for now.
I should mention that none of the "empty block" warnings for `for`
loop bodies were legitimate.
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 makes it more consistent with other command like import rules. We
don't have stricts rules and uniformity accross promtool unfortunately,
but I think it's better to only have the http config on relevant check
commands to avoid thinking Prometheus can e.g. check the config over the
wire.
Signed-off-by: Julien Pivotto <roidelapluie@o11y.eu>
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>
Scraping targets are synced by creating the full set, then adding/removing any which have changed.
This PR speeds up the process of creating the full set.
I added a benchmark for `TargetsFromGroup`; it uses configuration from a typical Kubernetes SD.
The crux of the change is to do relabeling inside labels.Builder instead of converting to labels.Labels and back again for every rule. The change is broken into several commits for easier review.
This is a breaking change to `scrape.PopulateLabels()`, but `relabel.Process` is left as-is, with a new `relabel.ProcessBuilder` option.
Common service discovery mechanisms such as Kubernetes can generate a
lot of target groups, so this function was allocating a lot of memory
which then immediately became garbage. Re-using the structures across
an entire Sync saves effort.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Save work converting to `Labels` then to `Builder`.
`PopulateLabels()` now takes as Builder as input.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Oleksandr Redko
Rens Groothuijsen
George Krajcsovits
Ziqi Zhao
Matthieu MOREL
ouyang1204
Goutham Veeramachaneni
Bryan Boreham
Ben Ye
Paschalis Tsilias
zenador
Arve Knudsen
Gregor Zeitlinger
Julien Pivotto
Rob Skillington
François Gouteroux
Nidhey Nitin Indurkar
beorn7
Ganesh Vernekar
Martin Chodur