Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ALLOCATION_FAILED Field [user] is defined as a field in mapping [syslog] #16695

Closed
jairagoo opened this issue Feb 16, 2016 · 5 comments
Closed

Comments

@jairagoo
Copy link

Hello,
I am receiving this issue on elasticsearch.log:
[2016-02-16 16:50:41,109][WARN ][indices.cluster ] 256}}},,,,,"user":{"type":"string","norms":{"enabled":false},"fielddata":{"format":"enabled"},"fields":{"raw":{"type":"string","index":"not_analyzed","ignore_above":256}}}}}}]
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Field [user] is defined as a field in mapping [syslog] but this name is already used for an object in other types

FROM Head:
"unassigned_info": {
"reason": "ALLOCATION_FAILED",
"at": "2016-02-16T21:38:01.695Z",
"details": "failed to update mappings, failure IllegalArgumentException[Field [user] is defined as a field in mapping [syslog] but this name is already used for an object in other types]"

I imagine that I have to modify a template somewhere, but not sure how to do so. Any guidance would be appreciated.
I am running Elasticsearch 2.2 and logstash 2.1.
Best,
~Jai

@saravanp
Copy link

I am seeing the same issue as well

-Saravan

@palmerabollo
Copy link

See https://discuss.elastic.co/t/how-to-solve-field-in-mapping-but-already-used-in-other-types/43067/3
They suggest to use different indexes, but I'd like to know a better solution, too.

@clintongormley
Copy link
Contributor

Hi all

As of 2.0.0, fields with the same name in different types in the same index must have the same mapping. This was part of a bigger change (see #8870) to clean up numerous problems with mappings. Your two alternatives are: use separate indices or rename one of the fields.

@codemariner
Copy link

fwiw, this problem only recently cropped up for us after updating from 2.1 to 2.3. We didn't update the mappings for the problem fields and have been running fine on 2.1 for some months now.

@clintongormley
Copy link
Contributor

@codemariner there were various bugs in earlier 2.x versions which still allowed conflicting mappings to be added.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants