|
|
|
// Copyright 2015 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
package promql
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
import (
|
|
|
|
"math"
|
|
|
|
"sort"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"golang.org/x/exp/slices"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"github.com/prometheus/prometheus/model/histogram"
|
|
|
|
"github.com/prometheus/prometheus/model/labels"
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Helpers to calculate quantiles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// excludedLabels are the labels to exclude from signature calculation for
|
|
|
|
// quantiles.
|
|
|
|
var excludedLabels = []string{
|
|
|
|
labels.MetricName,
|
|
|
|
labels.BucketLabel,
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
type bucket struct {
|
|
|
|
upperBound float64
|
|
|
|
count float64
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// buckets implements sort.Interface.
|
|
|
|
type buckets []bucket
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
type metricWithBuckets struct {
|
|
|
|
metric labels.Labels
|
|
|
|
buckets buckets
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// bucketQuantile calculates the quantile 'q' based on the given buckets. The
|
|
|
|
// buckets will be sorted by upperBound by this function (i.e. no sorting
|
|
|
|
// needed before calling this function). The quantile value is interpolated
|
|
|
|
// assuming a linear distribution within a bucket. However, if the quantile
|
|
|
|
// falls into the highest bucket, the upper bound of the 2nd highest bucket is
|
|
|
|
// returned. A natural lower bound of 0 is assumed if the upper bound of the
|
|
|
|
// lowest bucket is greater 0. In that case, interpolation in the lowest bucket
|
|
|
|
// happens linearly between 0 and the upper bound of the lowest bucket.
|
|
|
|
// However, if the lowest bucket has an upper bound less or equal 0, this upper
|
|
|
|
// bound is returned if the quantile falls into the lowest bucket.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// There are a number of special cases (once we have a way to report errors
|
|
|
|
// happening during evaluations of AST functions, we should report those
|
|
|
|
// explicitly):
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// If 'buckets' has 0 observations, NaN is returned.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// If 'buckets' has fewer than 2 elements, NaN is returned.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// If the highest bucket is not +Inf, NaN is returned.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// If q==NaN, NaN is returned.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// If q<0, -Inf is returned.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// If q>1, +Inf is returned.
|
|
|
|
func bucketQuantile(q float64, buckets buckets) float64 {
|
|
|
|
if math.IsNaN(q) {
|
|
|
|
return math.NaN()
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if q < 0 {
|
|
|
|
return math.Inf(-1)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if q > 1 {
|
|
|
|
return math.Inf(+1)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
slices.SortFunc(buckets, func(a, b bucket) int {
|
|
|
|
// We don't expect the bucket boundary to be a NaN.
|
|
|
|
if a.upperBound < b.upperBound {
|
|
|
|
return -1
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if a.upperBound > b.upperBound {
|
|
|
|
return +1
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
if !math.IsInf(buckets[len(buckets)-1].upperBound, +1) {
|
|
|
|
return math.NaN()
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
buckets = coalesceBuckets(buckets)
|
Force buckets in a histogram to be monotonic for quantile estimation (#2610)
* Force buckets in a histogram to be monotonic for quantile estimation
The assumption that bucket counts increase monotonically with increasing
upperBound may be violated during:
* Recording rule evaluation of histogram_quantile, especially when rate()
has been applied to the underlying bucket timeseries.
* Evaluation of histogram_quantile computed over federated bucket
timeseries, especially when rate() has been applied
This is because scraped data is not made available to RR evalution or
federation atomically, so some buckets are computed with data from the N
most recent scrapes, but the other buckets are missing the most recent
observations.
Monotonicity is usually guaranteed because if a bucket with upper bound
u1 has count c1, then any bucket with a higher upper bound u > u1 must
have counted all c1 observations and perhaps more, so that c >= c1.
Randomly interspersed partial sampling breaks that guarantee, and rate()
exacerbates it. Specifically, suppose bucket le=1000 has a count of 10 from
4 samples but the bucket with le=2000 has a count of 7, from 3 samples. The
monotonicity is broken. It is exacerbated by rate() because under normal
operation, cumulative counting of buckets will cause the bucket counts to
diverge such that small differences from missing samples are not a problem.
rate() removes this divergence.)
bucketQuantile depends on that monotonicity to do a binary search for the
bucket with the qth percentile count, so breaking the monotonicity
guarantee causes bucketQuantile() to return undefined (nonsense) results.
As a somewhat hacky solution until the Prometheus project is ready to
accept the changes required to make scrapes atomic, we calculate the
"envelope" of the histogram buckets, essentially removing any decreases
in the count between successive buckets.
* Fix up comment docs for ensureMonotonic
* ensureMonotonic: Use switch statement
Use switch statement rather than if/else for better readability.
Process the most frequent cases first.
8 years ago
|
|
|
ensureMonotonic(buckets)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if len(buckets) < 2 {
|
|
|
|
return math.NaN()
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
observations := buckets[len(buckets)-1].count
|
|
|
|
if observations == 0 {
|
|
|
|
return math.NaN()
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
rank := q * observations
|
|
|
|
b := sort.Search(len(buckets)-1, func(i int) bool { return buckets[i].count >= rank })
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if b == len(buckets)-1 {
|
|
|
|
return buckets[len(buckets)-2].upperBound
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if b == 0 && buckets[0].upperBound <= 0 {
|
|
|
|
return buckets[0].upperBound
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
var (
|
|
|
|
bucketStart float64
|
|
|
|
bucketEnd = buckets[b].upperBound
|
|
|
|
count = buckets[b].count
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
if b > 0 {
|
|
|
|
bucketStart = buckets[b-1].upperBound
|
|
|
|
count -= buckets[b-1].count
|
|
|
|
rank -= buckets[b-1].count
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return bucketStart + (bucketEnd-bucketStart)*(rank/count)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// histogramQuantile calculates the quantile 'q' based on the given histogram.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// The quantile value is interpolated assuming a linear distribution within a
|
|
|
|
// bucket.
|
|
|
|
// TODO(beorn7): Find an interpolation method that is a better fit for
|
|
|
|
// exponential buckets (and think about configurable interpolation).
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// A natural lower bound of 0 is assumed if the histogram has only positive
|
|
|
|
// buckets. Likewise, a natural upper bound of 0 is assumed if the histogram has
|
|
|
|
// only negative buckets.
|
|
|
|
// TODO(beorn7): Come to terms if we want that.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// There are a number of special cases (once we have a way to report errors
|
|
|
|
// happening during evaluations of AST functions, we should report those
|
|
|
|
// explicitly):
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// If the histogram has 0 observations, NaN is returned.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// If q<0, -Inf is returned.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// If q>1, +Inf is returned.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// If q is NaN, NaN is returned.
|
|
|
|
func histogramQuantile(q float64, h *histogram.FloatHistogram) float64 {
|
|
|
|
if q < 0 {
|
|
|
|
return math.Inf(-1)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if q > 1 {
|
|
|
|
return math.Inf(+1)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if h.Count == 0 || math.IsNaN(q) {
|
|
|
|
return math.NaN()
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
var (
|
|
|
|
bucket histogram.Bucket[float64]
|
|
|
|
count float64
|
|
|
|
it histogram.BucketIterator[float64]
|
|
|
|
rank float64
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// if there are NaN observations in the histogram (h.Sum is NaN), use the forward iterator
|
|
|
|
// if the q < 0.5, use the forward iterator
|
|
|
|
// if the q >= 0.5, use the reverse iterator
|
|
|
|
if math.IsNaN(h.Sum) || q < 0.5 {
|
|
|
|
it = h.AllBucketIterator()
|
|
|
|
rank = q * h.Count
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
it = h.AllReverseBucketIterator()
|
|
|
|
rank = (1 - q) * h.Count
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for it.Next() {
|
|
|
|
bucket = it.At()
|
|
|
|
count += bucket.Count
|
|
|
|
if count >= rank {
|
|
|
|
break
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if bucket.Lower < 0 && bucket.Upper > 0 {
|
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>
2 years ago
|
|
|
switch {
|
|
|
|
case len(h.NegativeBuckets) == 0 && len(h.PositiveBuckets) > 0:
|
|
|
|
// The result is in the zero bucket and the histogram has only
|
|
|
|
// positive buckets. So we consider 0 to be the lower bound.
|
|
|
|
bucket.Lower = 0
|
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>
2 years ago
|
|
|
case len(h.PositiveBuckets) == 0 && len(h.NegativeBuckets) > 0:
|
|
|
|
// The result is in the zero bucket and the histogram has only
|
|
|
|
// negative buckets. So we consider 0 to be the upper bound.
|
|
|
|
bucket.Upper = 0
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Due to numerical inaccuracies, we could end up with a higher count
|
|
|
|
// than h.Count. Thus, make sure count is never higher than h.Count.
|
|
|
|
if count > h.Count {
|
|
|
|
count = h.Count
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// We could have hit the highest bucket without even reaching the rank
|
|
|
|
// (this should only happen if the histogram contains observations of
|
|
|
|
// the value NaN), in which case we simply return the upper limit of the
|
|
|
|
// highest explicit bucket.
|
|
|
|
if count < rank {
|
|
|
|
return bucket.Upper
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// NaN observations increase h.Count but not the total number of
|
|
|
|
// observations in the buckets. Therefore, we have to use the forward
|
|
|
|
// iterator to find percentiles. We recognize histograms containing NaN
|
|
|
|
// observations by checking if their h.Sum is NaN.
|
|
|
|
if math.IsNaN(h.Sum) || q < 0.5 {
|
|
|
|
rank -= count - bucket.Count
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
rank = count - rank
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// TODO(codesome): Use a better estimation than linear.
|
|
|
|
return bucket.Lower + (bucket.Upper-bucket.Lower)*(rank/bucket.Count)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// histogramFraction calculates the fraction of observations between the
|
|
|
|
// provided lower and upper bounds, based on the provided histogram.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// histogramFraction is in a certain way the inverse of histogramQuantile. If
|
|
|
|
// histogramQuantile(0.9, h) returns 123.4, then histogramFraction(-Inf, 123.4, h)
|
|
|
|
// returns 0.9.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// The same notes (and TODOs) with regard to interpolation and assumptions about
|
|
|
|
// the zero bucket boundaries apply as for histogramQuantile.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Whether either boundary is inclusive or exclusive doesn’t actually matter as
|
|
|
|
// long as interpolation has to be performed anyway. In the case of a boundary
|
|
|
|
// coinciding with a bucket boundary, the inclusive or exclusive nature of the
|
|
|
|
// boundary determines the exact behavior of the threshold. With the current
|
|
|
|
// implementation, that means that lower is exclusive for positive values and
|
|
|
|
// inclusive for negative values, while upper is inclusive for positive values
|
|
|
|
// and exclusive for negative values.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Special cases:
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// If the histogram has 0 observations, NaN is returned.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Use a lower bound of -Inf to get the fraction of all observations below the
|
|
|
|
// upper bound.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Use an upper bound of +Inf to get the fraction of all observations above the
|
|
|
|
// lower bound.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// If lower or upper is NaN, NaN is returned.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// If lower >= upper and the histogram has at least 1 observation, zero is returned.
|
|
|
|
func histogramFraction(lower, upper float64, h *histogram.FloatHistogram) float64 {
|
|
|
|
if h.Count == 0 || math.IsNaN(lower) || math.IsNaN(upper) {
|
|
|
|
return math.NaN()
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if lower >= upper {
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
var (
|
|
|
|
rank, lowerRank, upperRank float64
|
|
|
|
lowerSet, upperSet bool
|
|
|
|
it = h.AllBucketIterator()
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
for it.Next() {
|
|
|
|
b := it.At()
|
|
|
|
if b.Lower < 0 && b.Upper > 0 {
|
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>
2 years ago
|
|
|
switch {
|
|
|
|
case len(h.NegativeBuckets) == 0 && len(h.PositiveBuckets) > 0:
|
|
|
|
// This is the zero bucket and the histogram has only
|
|
|
|
// positive buckets. So we consider 0 to be the lower
|
|
|
|
// bound.
|
|
|
|
b.Lower = 0
|
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>
2 years ago
|
|
|
case len(h.PositiveBuckets) == 0 && len(h.NegativeBuckets) > 0:
|
|
|
|
// This is in the zero bucket and the histogram has only
|
|
|
|
// negative buckets. So we consider 0 to be the upper
|
|
|
|
// bound.
|
|
|
|
b.Upper = 0
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if !lowerSet && b.Lower >= lower {
|
|
|
|
lowerRank = rank
|
|
|
|
lowerSet = true
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if !upperSet && b.Lower >= upper {
|
|
|
|
upperRank = rank
|
|
|
|
upperSet = true
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if lowerSet && upperSet {
|
|
|
|
break
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if !lowerSet && b.Lower < lower && b.Upper > lower {
|
|
|
|
lowerRank = rank + b.Count*(lower-b.Lower)/(b.Upper-b.Lower)
|
|
|
|
lowerSet = true
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if !upperSet && b.Lower < upper && b.Upper > upper {
|
|
|
|
upperRank = rank + b.Count*(upper-b.Lower)/(b.Upper-b.Lower)
|
|
|
|
upperSet = true
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if lowerSet && upperSet {
|
|
|
|
break
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
rank += b.Count
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if !lowerSet || lowerRank > h.Count {
|
|
|
|
lowerRank = h.Count
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if !upperSet || upperRank > h.Count {
|
|
|
|
upperRank = h.Count
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return (upperRank - lowerRank) / h.Count
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// coalesceBuckets merges buckets with the same upper bound.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// The input buckets must be sorted.
|
|
|
|
func coalesceBuckets(buckets buckets) buckets {
|
|
|
|
last := buckets[0]
|
|
|
|
i := 0
|
|
|
|
for _, b := range buckets[1:] {
|
|
|
|
if b.upperBound == last.upperBound {
|
|
|
|
last.count += b.count
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
buckets[i] = last
|
|
|
|
last = b
|
|
|
|
i++
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
buckets[i] = last
|
|
|
|
return buckets[:i+1]
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Force buckets in a histogram to be monotonic for quantile estimation (#2610)
* Force buckets in a histogram to be monotonic for quantile estimation
The assumption that bucket counts increase monotonically with increasing
upperBound may be violated during:
* Recording rule evaluation of histogram_quantile, especially when rate()
has been applied to the underlying bucket timeseries.
* Evaluation of histogram_quantile computed over federated bucket
timeseries, especially when rate() has been applied
This is because scraped data is not made available to RR evalution or
federation atomically, so some buckets are computed with data from the N
most recent scrapes, but the other buckets are missing the most recent
observations.
Monotonicity is usually guaranteed because if a bucket with upper bound
u1 has count c1, then any bucket with a higher upper bound u > u1 must
have counted all c1 observations and perhaps more, so that c >= c1.
Randomly interspersed partial sampling breaks that guarantee, and rate()
exacerbates it. Specifically, suppose bucket le=1000 has a count of 10 from
4 samples but the bucket with le=2000 has a count of 7, from 3 samples. The
monotonicity is broken. It is exacerbated by rate() because under normal
operation, cumulative counting of buckets will cause the bucket counts to
diverge such that small differences from missing samples are not a problem.
rate() removes this divergence.)
bucketQuantile depends on that monotonicity to do a binary search for the
bucket with the qth percentile count, so breaking the monotonicity
guarantee causes bucketQuantile() to return undefined (nonsense) results.
As a somewhat hacky solution until the Prometheus project is ready to
accept the changes required to make scrapes atomic, we calculate the
"envelope" of the histogram buckets, essentially removing any decreases
in the count between successive buckets.
* Fix up comment docs for ensureMonotonic
* ensureMonotonic: Use switch statement
Use switch statement rather than if/else for better readability.
Process the most frequent cases first.
8 years ago
|
|
|
// The assumption that bucket counts increase monotonically with increasing
|
|
|
|
// upperBound may be violated during:
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// * Recording rule evaluation of histogram_quantile, especially when rate()
|
|
|
|
// has been applied to the underlying bucket timeseries.
|
|
|
|
// * Evaluation of histogram_quantile computed over federated bucket
|
|
|
|
// timeseries, especially when rate() has been applied.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// This is because scraped data is not made available to rule evaluation or
|
|
|
|
// federation atomically, so some buckets are computed with data from the
|
|
|
|
// most recent scrapes, but the other buckets are missing data from the most
|
|
|
|
// recent scrape.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Monotonicity is usually guaranteed because if a bucket with upper bound
|
|
|
|
// u1 has count c1, then any bucket with a higher upper bound u > u1 must
|
|
|
|
// have counted all c1 observations and perhaps more, so that c >= c1.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Randomly interspersed partial sampling breaks that guarantee, and rate()
|
|
|
|
// exacerbates it. Specifically, suppose bucket le=1000 has a count of 10 from
|
|
|
|
// 4 samples but the bucket with le=2000 has a count of 7 from 3 samples. The
|
|
|
|
// monotonicity is broken. It is exacerbated by rate() because under normal
|
|
|
|
// operation, cumulative counting of buckets will cause the bucket counts to
|
|
|
|
// diverge such that small differences from missing samples are not a problem.
|
|
|
|
// rate() removes this divergence.)
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// bucketQuantile depends on that monotonicity to do a binary search for the
|
|
|
|
// bucket with the φ-quantile count, so breaking the monotonicity
|
|
|
|
// guarantee causes bucketQuantile() to return undefined (nonsense) results.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// As a somewhat hacky solution until ingestion is atomic per scrape, we
|
|
|
|
// calculate the "envelope" of the histogram buckets, essentially removing
|
|
|
|
// any decreases in the count between successive buckets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func ensureMonotonic(buckets buckets) {
|
|
|
|
max := buckets[0].count
|
|
|
|
for i := 1; i < len(buckets); i++ {
|
Force buckets in a histogram to be monotonic for quantile estimation (#2610)
* Force buckets in a histogram to be monotonic for quantile estimation
The assumption that bucket counts increase monotonically with increasing
upperBound may be violated during:
* Recording rule evaluation of histogram_quantile, especially when rate()
has been applied to the underlying bucket timeseries.
* Evaluation of histogram_quantile computed over federated bucket
timeseries, especially when rate() has been applied
This is because scraped data is not made available to RR evalution or
federation atomically, so some buckets are computed with data from the N
most recent scrapes, but the other buckets are missing the most recent
observations.
Monotonicity is usually guaranteed because if a bucket with upper bound
u1 has count c1, then any bucket with a higher upper bound u > u1 must
have counted all c1 observations and perhaps more, so that c >= c1.
Randomly interspersed partial sampling breaks that guarantee, and rate()
exacerbates it. Specifically, suppose bucket le=1000 has a count of 10 from
4 samples but the bucket with le=2000 has a count of 7, from 3 samples. The
monotonicity is broken. It is exacerbated by rate() because under normal
operation, cumulative counting of buckets will cause the bucket counts to
diverge such that small differences from missing samples are not a problem.
rate() removes this divergence.)
bucketQuantile depends on that monotonicity to do a binary search for the
bucket with the qth percentile count, so breaking the monotonicity
guarantee causes bucketQuantile() to return undefined (nonsense) results.
As a somewhat hacky solution until the Prometheus project is ready to
accept the changes required to make scrapes atomic, we calculate the
"envelope" of the histogram buckets, essentially removing any decreases
in the count between successive buckets.
* Fix up comment docs for ensureMonotonic
* ensureMonotonic: Use switch statement
Use switch statement rather than if/else for better readability.
Process the most frequent cases first.
8 years ago
|
|
|
switch {
|
|
|
|
case buckets[i].count > max:
|
|
|
|
max = buckets[i].count
|
|
|
|
case buckets[i].count < max:
|
|
|
|
buckets[i].count = max
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// quantile calculates the given quantile of a vector of samples.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// The Vector will be sorted.
|
|
|
|
// If 'values' has zero elements, NaN is returned.
|
|
|
|
// If q==NaN, NaN is returned.
|
|
|
|
// If q<0, -Inf is returned.
|
|
|
|
// If q>1, +Inf is returned.
|
|
|
|
func quantile(q float64, values vectorByValueHeap) float64 {
|
|
|
|
if len(values) == 0 || math.IsNaN(q) {
|
|
|
|
return math.NaN()
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if q < 0 {
|
|
|
|
return math.Inf(-1)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if q > 1 {
|
|
|
|
return math.Inf(+1)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
sort.Sort(values)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n := float64(len(values))
|
|
|
|
// When the quantile lies between two samples,
|
|
|
|
// we use a weighted average of the two samples.
|
|
|
|
rank := q * (n - 1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lowerIndex := math.Max(0, math.Floor(rank))
|
|
|
|
upperIndex := math.Min(n-1, lowerIndex+1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
weight := rank - math.Floor(rank)
|
promql: Separate `Point` into `FPoint` and `HPoint`
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>
2 years ago
|
|
|
return values[int(lowerIndex)].F*(1-weight) + values[int(upperIndex)].F*weight
|
|
|
|
}
|