Thanks for the feedback. We chose Elasticsearch as in our experience it is still the default tool for people to get started with logs. But do understand that ma

Thanks for the feedback. We chose Elasticsearch as in our experience it is still the default tool for people to get started with logs. But do understand that may be opensearch is also catching up now. >The author should also mention how much ES was faster against SigNoz with trace_id fetches (137x) and fetching first 100 logs (14x). We didn't mention this in the summary as for the scale we tested at the difference would not have been perceived by a user. e.g. For getting logs corresponding to a trace_id (log corresponding to high cardinality field), SigNoz tool 0.137s, and Elastic took 0.001s I think we read somewhere (will try to find source) that anything below 200ms in server response is not perceived by user