# 6.4 to 7.3, After Upgrade Elasticsearch uses 50% more Disk storage

**URL:** <https://discuss.elastic.co/t/6-4-to-7-3-after-upgrade-elasticsearch-uses-50-more-disk-storage/218766>\
**Category:** Elasticsearch\
**Created:** [February 11, 2020, 12:25pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/6-4-to-7-3-after-upgrade-elasticsearch-uses-50-more-disk-storage/218766 "2020-02-11T12:25:29Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![oshan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/oshan/32/61485_2.png) [@oshan](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/oshan)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2020, 12:25pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/6-4-to-7-3-after-upgrade-elasticsearch-uses-50-more-disk-storage/218766/1 "2020-02-11T12:25:29Z")

</div>

I am using ES 6.4 and after full indexing its size is 64GB for the Geo shapes index.  
then I did all the code migrations and did the full indexing using ES 7.3 setup.  
now that index size is 97GB. Is this an expected change? I can see Geo related changes on release notes. but this size is huge. any reasons?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ignacio\_Vera](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/ignacio_vera/32/36674_2.png) [@Ignacio\_Vera](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Ignacio_Vera)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2020, 9:27pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/6-4-to-7-3-after-upgrade-elasticsearch-uses-50-more-disk-storage/218766/2 "2020-02-11T21:27:06Z")

</div>

Hi,

In order to understand what is going on, could you share the mapping of your geo\_shape field?

Thanks!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![oshan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/oshan/32/61485_2.png) [@oshan](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/oshan)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2020, 12:24pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/6-4-to-7-3-after-upgrade-elasticsearch-uses-50-more-disk-storage/218766/3 "2020-02-12T12:24:42Z")

</div>

Hi @Ignacio_Vera This gist contains mapping and settings of that index.  
thanks for your time.

> <https://gist.github.com/owexroasia/dced0004aaad91b026f251b9ce023ae0>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ignacio\_Vera](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/ignacio_vera/32/36674_2.png) [@Ignacio\_Vera](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Ignacio_Vera)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2020, 12:24pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/6-4-to-7-3-after-upgrade-elasticsearch-uses-50-more-disk-storage/218766/4 "2020-02-14T12:24:25Z")

</div>

From your mappings, you are using new the indexing strategy based on vectorisation of shapes on top of Lucene BKD tree. In general we expect smaller index sizes, in particular when using prefix trees with high precision which is not your case.

Having a look into your mappings, are you using geo\_shape field to index points? if so, have you consider using geo\_point instead?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\
**Post date:** [March 13, 2020, 12:24pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/6-4-to-7-3-after-upgrade-elasticsearch-uses-50-more-disk-storage/218766/5 "2020-03-13T12:24:51Z")

</div>

This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.