Splunk inputlookup overwrite clause11/19/2023 The eval c command processes each result and performs a modulo operation.If the remainder of a/2 is 0, put "something" into the field "b", otherwise put "nada" into field "b". The eval b command processes each result and performs a modulo operation.A modulo operation finds the remainder after the division of one number by another number: Use the eval command to create some fields with data.Īn if function is used with a modulo (modulus) operation to add different data to each of the new fields. | makeresults count=5 | streamstats count as a | eval _time = _time + (60*a) | eval joiner="x"ĥ. Next use the eval command to create a field to use as the field to join the results on. The minute portion of the timestamp is updated.Ĥ. | makeresults count=5 | streamstats count as a | eval _time = _time + (60*a) Different timestamps make this example more realistic. Additionally, use the eval command to change the timestamps to be 60 seconds apart. | makeresults count=5 | streamstats count as aģ. To keep better track of each result use the streamstats command to add a field that numbers each result. There are 5 results created, each with the same timestamp.Ģ. Start by creating a simple set of 5 results by using the makeresults command. However, in this example the values in the results table are not changed so that we can focus on how the changes to the search impact the results.ġ. ![]() The values in the _time field change each time you rerun the search. With each addition to the search, the search is rerun and the impact of the additions are shown in a results table. This example builds a search incrementally. You can follow along with this example on your own Splunk instance. The following example shows how the selfjoin command works against a simple set of results. Join the results with itself on the 'id' field. You can use the selfjoin command to correlate information about a process with information about the parent process.īasic example 1: Use a single field to join results They are used less commonly with event data.Īn example of an events usecase is with events that contain information about processes, where each process has a parent process ID. Self joins are more commonly used with relational database tables. The main results are used as the basis for the join. Default: 1 overwrite Sytnax: overwrite= Description: When overwrite=true, causes fields from the 'other' results to overwrite fields of the main results. The maximum number of main results is 100,000. This argument sets the maximum for the 'other' results. Default: false max Syntax: max= Description: Indicates the maximum number of 'other' results to join with each main result. For example, if you're joining results matching employees to their managers, and one of the employees is the CEO who doesn't have a manager, the field for that employee is included in the results when keepsingle=true. When keepsingle=true, search results that have no other results to join with are kept in the output. Selfjoin options keepsingle Syntax: keepsingle= Description: Controls whether or not to retain results that have a unique value in the join fields and no matching values to join with. ![]() You can specify one or more of these options. Optional arguments Syntax: overwrite= | max= | keepsingle= Description: Options that control the search result set that is returned. Description: The field or list of fields to join on. Is this expected? I couldn't find anything in the docs to explain the difference in behavior.Join search result rows with other search result rows in the same result set, based on one or more fields that you specify. ![]() Somehow, this causes the flag field to disappear, as you can see here: | inputlookup append=true second_file.csv Then I tested this code snippet: | inputlookup first_file.csv | eval flag="this is from the first file" I tested this code first: | inputlookup first_file.csv They each contain three fields: _time, row, and file_source. I created two small test csv files: first_file.csv and second_file.csv. Here are a series of screenshots documenting what I found. I observed unexpected behavior when testing approaches using | inputlookup append=true. I saw a previous question dealing with this, but that question never got an accepted answer, and I think it was sufficiently complex that this distillation may highlight the issue more directly.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |