Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Lens] Misleading percentages shown in field stats when the field is only on some docs #81677

Closed
wylieconlon opened this issue Oct 26, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #85575
Closed
Labels
enhancement New value added to drive a business result Feature:Lens Team:Visualizations Visualization editors, elastic-charts and infrastructure

Comments

@wylieconlon
Copy link
Contributor

The main reason it's misleading is the footer which says for each field that the field is in "99% of 5,076 documents", which has ambiguous meaning. Will a user interpret this setting as:

  • We analyzed 99% of documents, and here are the values we foun
  • The field is available on 99% of documents
  • Confusion?

Screen Shot 2020-10-26 at 4 43 00 PM

This is very closely related to not using the sampler aggregation.

Potential solutions

My preferred solution is to use this display to indicate that the field is available on X% of documents, without sampling.

An alternative option is to indicate the sampling separately from the "existing" percent, effectively introducing a "Missing" value to each field.

@wylieconlon wylieconlon added enhancement New value added to drive a business result Team:Visualizations Visualization editors, elastic-charts and infrastructure Feature:Lens labels Oct 26, 2020
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Contributor

Pinging @elastic/kibana-app (Team:KibanaApp)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New value added to drive a business result Feature:Lens Team:Visualizations Visualization editors, elastic-charts and infrastructure
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants