The `info` function is an experiment to improve UX
around including labels from info metrics.
`info` has to be enabled via the feature flag `--enable-feature=promql-experimental-functions`.
This MVP of info simplifies the implementation by assuming:
* Only support for the target_info metric
* That target_info's identifying labels are job and instance
Also:
* Encode info samples' original timestamp as sample value
* Deduce info series select hints from top-most VectorSelector
---------
Signed-off-by: Arve Knudsen <arve.knudsen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ying WANG <ying.wang@grafana.com>
Co-authored-by: Augustin Husson <augustin.husson@amadeus.com>
Co-authored-by: Bartlomiej Plotka <bwplotka@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Björn Rabenstein <github@rabenste.in>
Co-authored-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
Put a scalar to query, it can be graphed.
So the doc says "an expression that returns an instant vector is the only type which can be graphed." is not correct?
And also, a query_range, which used for graph, always return a range vector <https://promlabs.com/blog/2020/06/18/the-anatomy-of-a-promql-query/#range-queries> , so it's confusing to read the above statement.
Signed-off-by: Viet Hung Nguyen <hvn@familug.org>
This unifies the documentation of float literals and time durations
and updates all references to the old definitions.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@grafana.com>
The OTLP receiver can now considered stable. We've had it for longer
than a year in main and has received constant improvements.
Signed-off-by: Jesus Vazquez <jesusvzpg@gmail.com>
The instant vector documentation does not explain which metric samples are selected - in particular, it makes no reference to staleness.
It's confusing when reading the docs to understand how exactly Prometheus selects the metrics to report: the most recent sample older than the search timestamp specified in the API request, so long as that metric is not "stale".
Signed-off-by: Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com>
The linear interpolation (assuming that observations are uniformly
distributed within a bucket) is a solid and simple assumption in lack
of any other information. However, the exponential bucketing used by
standard schemas of native histograms has been chosen to cover the
whole range of observations in a way that bucket populations are
spread out over buckets in a reasonably way for typical distributions
encountered in real-world scenarios.
This is the origin of the idea implemented here: If we divide a given
bucket into two (or more) smaller exponential buckets, we "most
naturally" expect that the samples in the original buckets will split
among those smaller buckets in a more or less uniform fashion. With
this assumption, we end up with an "exponential interpolation", which
therefore appears to be a better match for histograms with exponential
bucketing.
This commit leaves the linear interpolation in place for NHCB, but
changes the interpolation for exponential native histograms to
exponential. This affects `histogram_quantile` and
`histogram_fraction` (because the latter is more or less the inverse
of the former).
The zero bucket has to be treated specially because the assumption
above would lead to an "interpolation to zero" (the bucket density
approaches infinity around zero, and with the postulated uniform usage
of buckets, we would end up with an estimate of zero for all quantiles
ending up in the zero bucket). We simply fall back to linear
interpolation within the zero bucket.
At the same time, this commit makes the call to stick with the
assumption that the zero bucket only contains positive observations
for native histograms without negative buckets (and vice versa). (This
is an assumption relevant for interpolation. It is a mostly academic
point, as the zero bucket is supposed to be very small anyway.
However, in cases where it _is_ relevantly broad, the assumption helps
a lot in practice.)
This commit also updates and completes the documentation to match both
details about interpolation.
As a more high level note: The approach here attempts to strike a
balance between a more simplistic approach without any assumption, and
a more involved approach with more sophisticated assumptions. I will
shortly describe both for reference:
The "zero assumption" approach would be to not interpolate at all, but
_always_ return the harmonic mean of the bucket boundaries of the
bucket the quantile ends up in. This has the advantage of minimizing
the maximum possible relative error of the quantile estimation.
(Depending on the exact definition of the relative error of an
estimation, there is also an argument to return the arithmetic mean of
the bucket boundaries.) While limiting the maximum possible relative
error is a good property, this approach would throw away the
information if a quantile is closer to the upper or lower end of the
population within a bucket. This can be valuable trending information
in a dashboard. With any kind of interpolation, the maximum possible
error of a quantile estimation increases to the full width of a bucket
(i.e. it more than doubles for the harmonic mean approach, and
precisely doubles for the arithmetic mean approach). However, in
return the _expectation value_ of the error decreases. The increase of
the theoretical maximum only has practical relevance for pathologic
distributions. For example, if there are thousand observations within
a bucket, they could _all_ be at the upper bound of the bucket. If the
quantile calculation picks the 1st observation in the bucket as the
relevant one, an interpolation will yield a value close to the lower
bucket boundary, while the true quantile value is close to the upper
boundary.
The "fancy interpolation" approach would be one that analyses the
_actual_ distribution of samples in the histogram. A lot of statistics
could be applied based on the information we have available in the
histogram. This would include the population of neighboring (or even
all) buckets in the histogram. In general, the resolution of a native
histogram should be quite high, and therefore, those "fancy"
approaches would increase the computational cost quite a bit with very
little practical benefits (i.e. just tiny corrections of the estimated
quantile value). The results are also much harder to reason with.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@grafana.com>
Conflicts:
cmd/prometheus/main.go
docs/command-line/prometheus.md
docs/feature_flags.md
web/ui/build_ui.sh
web/web.go
Resolved by dropping the UTF-8 feature flag and adding the
`auto-reload-config` feature flag.
For the new web ui pick all changes from `main`.
I often see people ask questions that indicate they don't understand
this point, and launching into "instant vector" and "range vector" is
likely to point them in the wrong direction.
Remove the admonishment that the reader mustn't confuse these things.
Remove mention of "inferred sample timestamps" that is never explained.
Signed-off-by: Bryan Boreham <bjboreham@gmail.com>
* fix(docs/querying): explain `ceil` behaviour more explicitly with examples
Signed-off-by: Rick Rackow <rick.rackow@gmail.com>
* fix(docs/querying): explain `floor` behaviour more explicitly with examples
Signed-off-by: Rick Rackow <rick.rackow@paymenttools.com>
---------
Signed-off-by: Rick Rackow <rick.rackow@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Rick Rackow <rick.rackow@paymenttools.com>
Co-authored-by: Rick Rackow <rick.rackow@paymenttools.com>
docs: Remove outdated information about remote-read API
---------
Signed-off-by: kushagra Shukla <kushalshukla110@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Kushal shukla <85934954+kushalShukla-web@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Arthur Silva Sens <arthur.sens@coralogix.com>
Co-authored-by: Arthur Silva Sens <arthur.sens@coralogix.com>
Support limit parameter in queries to restrict output data to the specified size, on the following endpoints:
/api/v1/series
/api/v1/labels
/api/v1/label/:name:/values
Signed-off-by: Pranshu Srivastava <rexagod@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Kartikay <kartikay_2101ce32@iitp.ac.in>
Jan Fajerski