# Document \_type deprecation and upgrade from 6.0 to 6.x

**URL:** https://discuss.elastic.co/t/document-type-deprecation-and-upgrade-from-6-0-to-6-x/167149
**Category:** Elasticsearch
**Created:** [February 5, 2019, 3:18pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/document-type-deprecation-and-upgrade-from-6-0-to-6-x/167149 "2019-02-05T15:18:30Z")
**Posts on this page:** 5
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![74db36a597f21b891b3f](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/74db36a597f21b891b3f/32/45367_2.png) [@74db36a597f21b891b3f](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/74db36a597f21b891b3f)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2019, 3:18pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/document-type-deprecation-and-upgrade-from-6-0-to-6-x/167149/1 "2019-02-05T15:18:30Z")

</div>

Hi there. Please give advice for my situation.  
In my log collection pipeline logstash sort logs by indices using field "type". All ELK clusters has version 6.0. All new indices from main ELK cluster are being reindexed to backup cluster several times a day.  
I want to update ELK and was going to start from backup cluster. So I would get backup cluster with ELK 6.6 and main cluster with ELK 6.0 (still).

But here comes the question: main ELK cluster accepts indices with several documents' types from Logstash. But will backup ELK 6.6 cluster accept same indices by reindex process?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![DavidTurner](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/davidturner/32/22453_2.png) [@DavidTurner](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/DavidTurner)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2019, 3:28pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/document-type-deprecation-and-upgrade-from-6-0-to-6-x/167149/2 "2019-02-05T15:28:15Z")

</div>

There have been no breaking changes between 6.0 and 6.6 regarding the removal of multiple mapping types. They should behave the same.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![74db36a597f21b891b3f](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/74db36a597f21b891b3f/32/45367_2.png) [@74db36a597f21b891b3f](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/74db36a597f21b891b3f)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2019, 8:05am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/document-type-deprecation-and-upgrade-from-6-0-to-6-x/167149/3 "2019-02-06T08:05:09Z")

</div>

So ES 6.6 should accept index creation with \_type field with custom value?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![DavidTurner](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/davidturner/32/22453_2.png) [@DavidTurner](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/DavidTurner)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2019, 8:20am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/document-type-deprecation-and-upgrade-from-6-0-to-6-x/167149/4 "2019-02-06T08:20:17Z")

</div>

Yes, that's right.

---

<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 6, 2019, 8:20am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/document-type-deprecation-and-upgrade-from-6-0-to-6-x/167149/5 "2019-03-06T08:20:17Z")

</div>

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