From 5cfeef324cd3b98245c7c31ffb6e2074dd4b248f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Arve Knudsen Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 16:46:53 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Add alternative Signed-off-by: Arve Knudsen --- ...10-native-support-for-info-metrics-metadata.md | 15 +++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/2024-04-10-native-support-for-info-metrics-metadata.md b/proposals/2024-04-10-native-support-for-info-metrics-metadata.md index 9aaae6c..b8806a5 100644 --- a/proposals/2024-04-10-native-support-for-info-metrics-metadata.md +++ b/proposals/2024-04-10-native-support-for-info-metrics-metadata.md @@ -130,9 +130,20 @@ TODO: ## Alternatives -The section stating potential alternatives. Highlight the objections reader should have towards your proposal as they read it. Tell them why you still think you should take this path [[ref](https://twitter.com/whereistanya/status/1353853753439490049)] +### Add metadata as prefixed labels -1. This is why not solution Z... +Instead of encoding metadata, e.g. OTel resource attributes, as info metric labels, add them directly as labels to corresponding metrics. + +#### Pros + +* Simplicity, removes need for joining with info metrics + +#### Cons + +* Metrics will have potentially far more labels than what's strictly necessary to identify them +* Temporary series churn when migrating existing metrics to this new scheme +* Increased series churn when metadata labels change +* More labels per metric increases CPU/memory usage ## Action Plan