3 ms·
1. It is extremely resource-efficient. 2. It has a convenient and simple query language. 3. It works very well with traces and metrics. the pain part: 1. It
by suraci 2y ago
1. It is extremely resource-efficient.
2. It has a convenient and simple query language.
3. It works very well with traces and metrics.
the pain part:
1. It struggles to query logs over a wide time range.
2. Its indexing (or labeling) capabilities are very limited, similar to Prometheus.
3. Due to 1 and 2, it is difficult to configure and use correctly to avoid errors related to usage limits (e.g., maximum series limits).
- arcanemachiner 2y agoWhich its is it that your its are referring to?
- suraci 2y agoloki
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- valyala 2y ago> 2. It has a convenient and simple query language IMHO, Loki query language is the most inconvenient language for logs I've seen: - It doesn't support calculating multiple stats in a single query. For example, it cannot calculate the number of logs and the average request duration in a single query. - Its' syntax for aggregate functions is very unintuitive and is hard to use, especially if you aren't familiar with PromQL. - It requires putting an annoying "|=" separator between words and phrases you are searching in logs. - You need to use a hack with JSON parsing when filtering or stats calculations on log fields is needed.