Hmm, we do use the realm tag in our metric publishing. I understand the concern re: cardinality. Maybe we can support filtering metrics that have realm and support another metric without realm?
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 12:24 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> wrote: > Removing realm_id from metrics tags makes sense to me (to avoid high > cardinality). > > If we need to have insight into load differences from realm to realm, it > might be preferable to introduce metrics dedicated to that rather than > increasing the cardinality of every endpoint metric. > > Cheers, > Dmitri. > > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 3:30 PM Alex Dutra <alex.du...@dremio.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to suggest removing the "realm_id" metric tag entirely. > > > > My concern is that this tag has the potential for high cardinality, which > > is generally considered a bad practice when dealing with metrics. High > > cardinality can lead to performance issues and increased memory usage. > > > > Granted, the default realm resolver in Polaris is tailored for just a > > handful of realms, but nothing prevents users from declaring hundreds of > > realms. > > > > I believe we can still effectively monitor Polaris servers without this > > specific tag, since the realm ID is also propagated in traces emitted by > > Polaris. Tracing is a much better fit for high-cardinality domains. > > > > I'm open to discussing this further; a potential alternative would be to > > introduce a flag to disable this specific metric tag, but I feel like > > removing it would be a much cleaner approach. > > > > Let me know your thoughts. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alex > > >
