- INDEX NOTATION EQUILIBRIUM 3D ELASTIC STRUCTURE UPDATE
- INDEX NOTATION EQUILIBRIUM 3D ELASTIC STRUCTURE FULL
It does not complicate the api, or have possible confusion for users who pass in foo.bar in there document, but then later find they must query with foo\.bar.In the mechanics of materials, the strength of a material is its ability to withstand an applied load without failure or plastic deformation.It works with existing 1.x indexes for upgrade.
However, I still think this dots-as-path approach is correct for a couple reasons:
While discussing with he also made me realize escaping might be simpler than I originally thought. But I think that is completely doable and testable. I think in the case, for example, where foo is already a nested field, we will need to reject foo.bar as a field, since it should require that foo is an object field. I do also think that we shouldn't be so concerned with returning a normalized view, but that can/should be explored in a separate has expressed a concern with this approach and the edge cases it brings, in particular with nested fields. Therefore your "version 3" should be what happens.
INDEX NOTATION EQUILIBRIUM 3D ELASTIC STRUCTURE UPDATE
Update requests should work as they do today, which I believe merges the new document with the previous version. INDEX NOTATION EQUILIBRIUM 3D ELASTIC STRUCTURE FULL
Source filtering should be viewed as a regex on the full path of a field, so I think returning the source as-is for all fields with a full path that match the regex is correct (so it should return your first example). In the first case, I believe we can implement it within the document parsing that we have (which is where dynamic mappings are determined), and can be done independently of the second case (which I believe is harder, but still doable).Īs for your concerns about _source, my thoughts are as follows: There are really two sides to users pain here, the first is dynamic mappings, and the second is explicit mappings. I am still convinced that doing dots-as-path is the correct choice. That is much more complicated than what we have today (and I especially don't like that the lookup of a field for search becomes linear on the object level of the field). Where do you see duplicate The logic you described there for adding new fields and searching is exactly why I don't like that approach. We allow duplicate values for a field to append instead of error? That is leniency at its best: I don't know of any json parsers that emit arrays as duplicate keys (at least not by default), which means the user is probably serializing themselves, The second thing that bugs me is that your example works at all. If we go with treating dots as paths ,then this won't work correctly, eg a document containing both forms (eg will be rejected if indexed first, but if indexed after a document containing just one form, it will be accepted.įirst, why do we have _source filtering at because users want to be able to get back what they put in, and to be able to distinguish between values such as: The second document will trigger a dynamic mapping update that will be rejected since the mapping would have two mappers that have the same path: #15243 In other words, these two documents would be equivalent:Īctually this should already work today. Treat dots as pathsĪnother solution would be to treat fields with dots in them as "paths" rather than field names. The first and simplest solution is to simply replace dots in field names with another character (eg _) as is done by the Logstash de_dot filter and which will be supported natively in Elasticsearch by the node ingest de_dot processor. Now that mappings are much stricter (and immutable), it becomes feasible to revisit the question of whether to allow dots to occur in field names. Removing support for dots has caused pain for a number of users and especially as Elasticsearch is being used more and more for the metrics use case (where dotted fields are common), we should consider what we can do to improve this situation. The behaviour was undefined and resulted in ambiguities when trying to reference fields with the dot notation used in queries and aggregations.
0 kommentar(er)
