Changing number of shards on an index


(ruflin-2) #1

Hi Shay

In version 0.16.1 it was possible to change the number of shards on an
index (or at least the new value was stored internally and no
exception was thrown). With version 0.16.2 I receive the following
exception during running my Elastica tests:

ElasticSearchIllegalArgumentException[can't change the number of
shards for an index]

Is that something that shouldn't have been possible in 0.16.1 and is
now fixed?

Best,
Nicolas


(Shay Banon) #2

Yep :). The update settings has a controlled list of settings that are allowed to be set. This is better handled in master, but I saw people did it by mistake in 0.16.1, so I added explicit exception for this.

On Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 11:37 AM, ruflin wrote:

Hi Shay

In version 0.16.1 it was possible to change the number of shards on an
index (or at least the new value was stored internally and no
exception was thrown). With version 0.16.2 I receive the following
exception during running my Elastica tests:

ElasticSearchIllegalArgumentException[can't change the number of
shards for an index]

Is that something that shouldn't have been possible in 0.16.1 and is
now fixed?

Best,
Nicolas


(ruflin-2) #3

Ok. So the number of shards can always only be set during creating the
index (which means I should remove the function setNumberOfShards).

On Jun 7, 1:12 pm, Shay Banon shay.ba...@elasticsearch.com wrote:

Yep :). The update settings has a controlled list of settings that are allowed to be set. This is better handled in master, but I saw people did it by mistake in 0.16.1, so I added explicit exception for this.

On Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 11:37 AM, ruflin wrote:

Hi Shay

In version 0.16.1 it was possible to change the number of shards on an
index (or at least the new value was stored internally and no
exception was thrown). With version 0.16.2 I receive the following
exception during running my Elastica tests:

ElasticSearchIllegalArgumentException[can't change the number of
shards for an index]

Is that something that shouldn't have been possible in 0.16.1 and is
now fixed?

Best,
Nicolas


(system) #4