Use top-level keyword fields instead of subfields

[dhruvkb]

Series

This PR is part 2/3.

1. Reduce ES shard count and simplify index properties #3143
2. This PR
3. Remove unreferenced subfields in indices #3162

Fixes

Fixes #2154 by @sarayourfriend

Description

This PR updates index usage in the API to not use the keyword-type subfields but rather the parent keyword-type field.

Checklist

• My pull request has a descriptive title (not a vague title likeUpdate index.md).
• My pull request targets the default branch of the repository (main) or a parent feature branch.
• My commit messages follow best practices.
• My code follows the established code style of the repository.
• I added or updated tests for the changes I made (if applicable).
• I added or updated documentation (if applicable).
• I tried running the project locally and verified that there are no visible errors.
• I ran the DAG documentation generator (if applicable).

Developer Certificate of Origin

Developer Certificate of Origin

Developer Certificate of Origin
Version 1.1

Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors.
1 Letterman Drive
Suite D4700
San Francisco, CA, 94129

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed.


Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1

By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
    have the right to submit it under the open source license
    indicated in the file; or

(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
    of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
    license and I have the right under that license to submit that
    work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
    by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
    permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
    in the file; or

(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
    person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
    it.

(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
    are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
    personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
    maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
    this project or the open source license(s) involved.

[obulat]

LGTM! Tested the stats and related endpoints, and license and source filter parameters after rebuilding the images and indexes - everything works fine.

[openverse-bot]

Based on the high urgency of this PR, the following reviewers are being gently reminded to review this PR:

@stacimc
This reminder is being automatically generated due to the urgency configuration.

Excluding weekend¹ days, this PR was ready for review 4 day(s) ago. PRs labelled with high urgency are expected to be reviewed within 2 weekday(s)².

@dhruvkb, if this PR is not ready for a review, please draft it to prevent reviewers from getting further unnecessary pings.

Footnotes

1. Specifically, Saturday and Sunday. ↩

2. For the purpose of these reminders we treat Monday - Friday as weekdays. Please note that the operation that generates these reminders runs at midnight UTC on Monday - Friday. This means that depending on your timezone, you may be pinged outside of the expected range. ↩

[stacimc]

This LGTM to me. Should we add a blocked label or otherwise mark this as Do not merge?

For posterity, linking the deployment doc so it's easier to understand what happened here when reviewing in the future.