-
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
Include runtime fields in total fields count #89251
Merged
mayya-sharipova
merged 5 commits into
elastic:main
from
mayya-sharipova:runtime-fields-total-count
Aug 15, 2022
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
edbfb35
Include runtime fields in total fields count
mayya-sharipova 8a7bdd8
Update docs/changelog/89251.yaml
mayya-sharipova 7b547a4
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into runtime-fields-tota…
mayya-sharipova 1ee4270
Address Luca's feedback 1
mayya-sharipova dbf2022
Address Luca's feedback 2
mayya-sharipova File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ | ||
pr: 89251 | ||
summary: Include runtime fields in total fields count | ||
area: Mapping | ||
type: bug | ||
issues: | ||
- 88265 |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
A runtime field can have the same name as an indexed field, in which case it will shadow the indexed field at search time. I wondered if it's ok to have the same set for both runtime fields and indexed fields and it does look ok because when it comes to dynamic mappings, when we encounter a new field, either we map it as a runtime field or as an indexed field, and never both, so there are never going to be collisions. Shall we add a comment to clarify that?
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.
@javanna Good suggestion, addressed in dbf2022
Indeed for dynamic updates, a field can be mapped either as runtime field or as indexed field, so no problem here.
For PUT _mapping updates, a user can introduce a new runtime field with the same name as existing indexed field. In this case, this new runtime field will be added to the total count, and can cause an exception for total field counts.