fighting the lack of good ideas
I had a decent library of documentation, templates, hand-offs, slide decks, etc in my pre-Splunk consulting life (technically, I still have them).
It’s nice to be finally getting a decent collection to draw from for my customers in my post-automation consulting life.
Had a customer recently ask about to disaggregate a Splunk search that had aggregated fields because they export to CSV horribly.
Here’s the thing.
You can’t disaggregate aggregated fields.
And there’s a Good Reason™, too: aggregation, by definition, is a one-way street.
You can’t un-average something.
Average is an aggregation function.
So why would you think you could disaggregate any other Splunk aggregation operation (like values or list)?
You can’t.
And you shouldn’t be able to (as nice as the theoretical use case for it might be).
So what is a body to do when you have a use case for a clean-to-export report that looks as if it had been aggregated, but every field in each row cleanly plunks-out to a single comma-separated value?
{parent search}
| join {some field that'll exist in the subsearch}
[ search {parent search}
| stats {some stats functions here} ]
| fields - {whatever you don't want}
| sort - {fieldname}
The subsearch is identical to the outer search, plus whatever filtering/where/|stats you might want/need to do.
Using the resultant, filtered set, join on a field you know will be unique [enough].
Then sort however you’d like, and remove whatever fields you don’t want in the final display.
Of course, be sure your subsearch will complete in under 60 seconds and/or return fewer than 10,000 lines (unless you’ve modified your Splunk limits.conf)
Splunk’s | stats functions are incredibly useful and powerful.
There are two, list and values that look identical…at first blush.
But they are subtly different. Here’s how they’re not the same.
values is an aggregating, uniquifying function.
list is an aggregating, not uniquifying function.
“Whahhuh?!” I hear you ask.
Here’s a prime example – say you’re aggregating on the field IP_addr all user values.
Your search might contain the following chunk: | stats values(user) as user by IP_addr. So for each unique IP address, you will collate a uniquified list of users. Maybe you have the following two IP addresses: 10.10.10.10 & 10.10.20.10. And you have the following user-IP address pairings: kingpin11 10.10.10.10, fergus97 10.10.20.10, gerfluggle 10.10.10.10, kingping11 10.10.10.10, jbobgorry 10.10.10.10.
values will aggregate all of the following users associated with IP addresses: 10.10.10.10 & gerfluggle, jbobgorry, kingping11; 10.10.20.10 & fergus97.
That’s nice – it’s pretty.
But it exports in lousy form if you need to further process the data in another tool (eg Microsoft Excel).
When Splunk exports those results in a CSV, instead of getting a nice, processable file, you get tabs separating what would otherwise be individual items that have all been grouped into one field.
Enter list.
list doesn’t uniquify the values given to it, so while you still only get one line per IP address (since that was our by clause in the snippet above), you get as many IP addresses listed as there are users (in this example).
This makes for an exportable, more processable set of results that a tool like Excel can ingest to perform further analysis with relatively little reformatting needed.
Come back tomorrow for how to get the export to work “out of the box”.
I first ran into this on Solaris in the context of [then] Opsware SAS (then HP SA, now owned by Microfocus). Bind mounts might be OK … so unless the tarball has symlinks included, don’t use them – they get traversed differently than “real” directories.
In short, when directory traversals are done, sometimes it looks at the permissions bits and if the first character is not a d (for a symlink, it’s always an l), many processes can fail.
Symlinking files is [possibly] a different story: though permissions are usually wonky on symlinks (most often lrwxrwxrwx vs -rw-r--r--, for example), since you cannot traverse into a file (whereas you can into a directory), it’s generally ok
Also – sometimes when directory listings are pulled, the symlink is fully-dereferenced, and something that appears to be in, say, $SPLUNK_HOME/etc/deployment_apps but is really in, say, /some/other/place, there are some times when Splunk will decide not to deploy it, because it’s not where it “belongs”.
Also – checksums can be computed on the symlink and not the actual file, in some (perhaps all) instances: so if, for example, you have the same outputs.conf in several apps by way of symlink, and you change it in one, the checksum for all the others may (and typically do) not get updated … so you can be left in an inconsistent state for your configs (because not all locations that should’ve received the updated outputs.conf have received it, since they’re symlinks and not a real file, and the checksum may not update on those particular apps).
Unless you really know what you’re doing, never use symlinks with Splunk.
Yesterday I wrote-up a neat little find in Splunk wherein running stats count by ... is substantially faster than running dedup ....
After some further reflection over dinner, I figured out the major portion of why this is – and I feel a little dumb for not having thought of it before. (A coworker added some more context, but it’s a smaller reason of why one is faster then the other.)
The major reason stats count by... is faster than dedup ... is that stats can hand-off the counting process to something else (though, even if it doesn’t, incrementing a hashtable entry by 1 every time you encounter an instance isn’t terribly computationally complex) and keep going.
In contrast, dedup must compare every individual returned event’s field that matches what you’re trying to dedup to it’s growing list of unique entries for that field.
In the particular case I was seeing yesterday, that means that every single event in the list of 4,000,000 events returned by the search has to be compared one at a time to a list (that I know is going to top out at about 11,000). To use Big-O Notation, this is an O(n*m) operation (bordering on O(n2))!
That initial list of length m fills pretty quickly (it is, after all, only going to get to ~11,000 total entries (in this case)), but as it grows to its max, it gets progressively harder and hard to check whether or not the next event has already been dedup’d.
At ~750,000 events returned (roughly 1/5 my total), the list is unique field values was 98% complete – yet there were still ~3.2 million events left to go (to find just 2% more unique field values).
Those last 3.2 million events each need to check against the list of >10,500 entries – which means, roughly, 16,8 billion comparisons still need to be made!
(Because linear searching finds what it’s looking for on average by the time it has traversed half the list. If the list is being created in a slighly more efficient manner (say a heap or [balanced] binary search tree), it will still take ~43 million comparisons (
3.2 million * log2(11,000)).)
Compare this to the relative complexity of using |stats count by ... – it still has to run through all 4 million events, but all it is doing is adding one to the list for every value that shows up in that particular field – IOW, it “only” has to do a total of 4 million [simple] things (because it does need to look at every event returned). dedup at a minimum is going to do ~54 million comparison (and probably a lot more – given it doesn’t merely take 13x the time to run, but closer to 25x).
The secondary contributing factor – important, but not as much a factor as what I covered above – is that dedup must process the whole event, whereas stats chucks everything that isn’t part of what it’s counting (so if an event is 1kb in size, dedup has to return the whole kb, while stats is only looking at maybe 1/10 the total (if you include a coupld extra fields)).
Another neat aspect of using |stats is that it creates a table for you – if you’re running |dedup, you then have to |table ... to get the fields you want displayed how you want.
And adding |table adds to the run time.
So there you have it – turns out those CompSci 201 classes do come in handy 18 years later 🤓
It’s fairly common to want to table the data you’ve found in a search in Splunk – heck, if you’re not prettying the data up somewhy, why are you bothering with the tool?
But I digress.
There are two (at least) ways of making a table – you can use the |table <field(s)> syntax, or you can use |stats <some function> <field(s)> approach.
Interestingly, in my testing in both test and production environments, using the |stats... approach is consistently 10-15% faster than the |table... option.
Why? I don’t know. He’s on third. And I don’t give a darn!
This is another case of technical intricacies mattering … but I don’t know what is going on under the hood that makes the apparently-more-complex option run faster than the apparently-simler option.
Maybe someday someone in Splunk engineering will be able to enlighten me to that.
This reminds me a bit of an optimization I was able to help a friend with upwards of 12 years ago – they had queries running in MySQL that were taking forever to complete (and by “forever”, I mean they were running sometimes 4-5 times a long as the interval between running them (they ran every 5 mintues, but could take 20+ minutes to finish!)).
What I found, at least back in the dark days of MySQL 3.x was that using IN(...) was loads faster than using OR statements.
So a query that had a clause WHERE name IN("bob","sarah","mike","terry","sue") would run anywhere from 20-90% quicker than the logically-equivalent WHERE name="bob" OR name="sarah" OR name="mike" OR name="terry" OR name="sue" (given a large enough dataset overwhich it was running … on small [enough] tables (say up to a couplefew thousand records), the OR version would run equally, or occasionally faster).
In their case, by switching to the IN(...) form, queries went from taking 20+ minutes to finishing in ~20 seconds!
It is well-known in Splunkland that using dedup is an “expensive” operation. Want a clever way around it (that is much faster)? Instead of doing something like index=myndx | fields ip host | dedup host, run index=myndx | fields ip host | stats count by host | fields -count. The |stats .. |fields -count trick seems to run anywhere from 15-30% faster than dedup.
Recent Paragraphs