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

Strange limit behavior #1167

Closed
morigs opened this issue Nov 9, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

Strange limit behavior #1167

morigs opened this issue Nov 9, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@morigs
Copy link

morigs commented Nov 9, 2018

Requirement - what kind of business use case are you trying to solve?

Searching traces by tags. View a certain amount of recent traces.

Problem - what in Jaeger blocks you from solving the requirement?

Jaeger shows very different search results depending on the limit. Some of traces from begging and the middle of the full list disappears on small limits.

screenshot from 2018-11-09 16-52-41
screenshot from 2018-11-09 16-52-58

In addition, the number of results also strangely varies depending on the limit. For example, 3 results for limit 10 and 4 results for limit 15.

screenshot from 2018-11-09 16-55-19
screenshot from 2018-11-09 16-55-40

It seems this problem only occurs when the operation is set to all.

Proposal - what do you suggest to solve the problem or improve the existing situation?

There is similar issue #411, But I'm not sure and there is no response since Oct 13.
I found that difference in processing of query without operation caused by this line

if traceQuery.OperationName != "" {

So we use queryByServiceName query (or queryByTag if any tags are specified) instead of queryByServiceAndOperationName.
https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/blob/50429cb55aee9280e39621a0b5aae3c2afe5d190/plugin/storage/cassandra/schema/v001.cql.tmpl
And as a consequence we selecting from service_name_index or tag_index instead of service_operation_index. They both use bucket strategy, may this be the reason?

Any open questions to address

@yurishkuro
Copy link
Member

I think this is the same issue as #411

@morigs
Copy link
Author

morigs commented Nov 10, 2018

OK, but in #411 there is no activity from October 13. What to do next?
And I think that this is not a question, but definitely a bug.

@yurishkuro
Copy link
Member

Lack of activity is not going to be helped by opening a duplicate ticket. Both tickets are duplicates of a much earlier ticket #166, a known issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants