-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24.9k
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
Remove the ability to delete mappings #8877
Comments
Deleting a type from an index is inherently dangerous because the type can be recreated with new mappings which may conflict with existing segments still using the old mappings. This removes the ability to delete a type (similar to how deleting fields within a type is not allowed, for the same reason). closes elastic#8877 closes elastic#10231
In elastic#8877, the deletion of the type associated with a river was removed. This change adds back the removal using a scan search along with bulk delete requests.
This is mostly removing code that handled deletion of types, which was removed in elastic#8877.
This is mostly removing code that handled deletion of types, which was removed in elastic#8877. closes elastic#10666
This is mostly removing code that handled deletion of types, which was removed in elastic#8877. closes elastic#10666
This is mostly removing code that handled deletion of types, which was removed in elastic#8877. closes elastic#10666
Just digged to that PR from the annoucment about removing delete by query and delete mapping in Elasticsearch 2.0. As far as I understand the problem is that the field name is stored directly in index and it is not possible to use it later with different type settings. So how it will behave if in one index I have two types with mappings that have different types for the field named e.g. |
@jasisz in 2.0 we explicitly forbid creating fields of the same name with conflicting mappings, for the same reason |
Currently, a user can delete a
type
entirely, which deletes the type, all documents of that type, and removes the associated fields. Unfortunately, if any documents of that type have already been indexed, then the fields are part of the index. Adding fields with the same name but a different data type will cause conflicts later on. (See #8530 (comment))We should remove the ability to delete types/mappings.
Relates to #8870
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: