-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25k
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
[Docs] Clarify multi match query field limit #34801
Conversation
Pinging @elastic/es-search-aggs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jimczi I have a suspicion this got backported by accident, the limit is checked on master in QueryParserHelper, but I couldn't find any code enforcing this on the 6.x branches. I might be wrong about this, in which case we can simply close the issue.
We limit the number of fields that a query can be expanded to to 1024 starting with 7.0. However, I think that we don't enforce this in earlier versions already. This change clarifies that while leaving a note that the limit is going to be in effect in future versions and that a large number of fields can cause problems.
f08e16a
to
3ce6bf3
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good catch @cbuescher ! We didn't backport #26541 in 6x, I think that we should though. We need to log a deprecation warning in 6x if the number of fields reached the limit in order to warn users about the breaking change in 7. Can we handle the documentation update in the backport ?
I can do it if you don't have time, just say the word ;).
@jimczi great, I can do the deprecation in the backport in a separate PR if that is okay. I think it makes sense to merge this docs PR separately and port it back all the way to 6.1 because this is were I think we start mentioning the limit now. I would add the deprecation warning only on 6.x and 6.4 branch since these are the only ones we still might do releases from. |
Thanks and I agree that we can backport the docs change up to 6.1
I think 6.6 is enough and we can add it for 6.5.1 too but IMO it's too late for 6.4 |
@jimczi thanks, would you approve this docs change then, I will merge it to the 6.x branches down to 6.1 and open a follow up for the deprecation warning |
We limit the number of fields that a query can be expanded to to 1024 starting with 7.0. However, we don't enforce this in earlier versions already. This change clarifies that while leaving a note that the limit is going to be in effect in future versions and that a large number of fields can cause problems.
We limit the number of fields that a query can be expanded to to 1024 starting with 7.0. However, we don't enforce this in earlier versions already. This change clarifies that while leaving a note that the limit is going to be in effect in future versions and that a large number of fields can cause problems.
We limit the number of fields that a query can be expanded to to 1024 starting with 7.0. However, we don't enforce this in earlier versions already. This change clarifies that while leaving a note that the limit is going to be in effect in future versions and that a large number of fields can cause problems.
We limit the number of fields that a query can be expanded to to 1024 starting with 7.0. However, we don't enforce this in earlier versions already. This change clarifies that while leaving a note that the limit is going to be in effect in future versions and that a large number of fields can cause problems.
We limit the number of fields that a query can be expanded to to 1024 starting with 7.0. However, we don't enforce this in earlier versions already. This change clarifies that while leaving a note that the limit is going to be in effect in future versions and that a large number of fields can cause problems.
We limit the number of fields that a query can be expanded to to 1024 starting
with 7.0. However, I think that we don't enforce this in earlier versions
already. This change clarifies that while leaving a note that the limit is going
to be in effect in future versions and that a large number of fields can cause
problems.
Relates to #34778