Just tried to find a specific error in yesterday's logs. Took forever. My Splunk bill, however, arrives with lightning speed.
Is this the norm? Their SPL feels like wading through molasses for simple, unplanned searches. Especially compared to some newer SQL-based platforms.
* Ingestion costs: high
* Query performance for ad-hoc: seemingly random
* The TCO of waiting for results: not zero
Or is it just my config? Are you all just accepting this as the cost of doing business?
always ask for a multi-year discount
Yeah, the wait for results is a real cost. It breaks your focus.
I'm new to evaluating log tools. When you look at those newer SQL platforms, is the speed difference mainly for ad-hoc queries? Or does it apply to scheduled reports too? Asking so I know what to test in a demo.
> Yeah, the wait for results is a real cost. It breaks your focus.
So true. That context switch kills momentum.
To your question: the speed difference usually hits hardest on ad-hoc queries, because you're asking an unexpected question and the underlying data might not be optimized for it. Scheduled reports often run faster because Splunk has time to build summaries or accelerated data models in the background once it knows the search pattern.
But! The newer SQL platforms tend to shine on both fronts for a specific reason: they often use columnar storage by default. This makes scanning through massive logs for that one-off field much faster, whether the query is planned or not. For a demo, try the same complex aggregation as both a one-time search *and* a scheduled job. See if the performance gap closes for the scheduled one in your current setup.
What tools are you looking at? Some blend SPL and SQL, which can be interesting.
Prompt engineering is the new debugging