You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am currently working with the 1-hour microservices dataset released by your team, which includes the following tables: CallGraph_0, MCRRTUpdate_0, MSMetricsUpdate_0, and NodeMetricsUpdate_0.
I have encountered a challenge when attempting to connect these tables in a meaningful way. Specifically, there seems to be an inconsistency with the msinstanceid values between the CallGraph_0 and MSMetricsUpdate_0 tables.
For example, in CallGraph_0, there is a row with traceid T_13736926193 where um is MS_40586 and uminstanceid is MS_40586_POD_1010. When I attempt to match this to the MSMetricsUpdate_0 table to find the corresponding metrics for um MS_40586, I find records where the msname matches um, but the msinstanceid does not match the uminstanceid from CallGraph_0.
I am looking for guidance on how to interpret these relations. Is there a linking key that I am missing, or is this an expected discrepancy due to the nature of the data?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello @niewuya ,
I am currently working with the 1-hour microservices dataset released by your team, which includes the following tables:
CallGraph_0
,MCRRTUpdate_0
,MSMetricsUpdate_0
, andNodeMetricsUpdate_0
.I have encountered a challenge when attempting to connect these tables in a meaningful way. Specifically, there seems to be an inconsistency with the
msinstanceid
values between theCallGraph_0
andMSMetricsUpdate_0
tables.For example, in
CallGraph_0
, there is a row withtraceid
T_13736926193 whereum
is MS_40586 anduminstanceid
is MS_40586_POD_1010. When I attempt to match this to theMSMetricsUpdate_0
table to find the corresponding metrics forum
MS_40586, I find records where themsname
matchesum
, but themsinstanceid
does not match theuminstanceid
fromCallGraph_0
.I am looking for guidance on how to interpret these relations. Is there a linking key that I am missing, or is this an expected discrepancy due to the nature of the data?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: