Does index.cache.field.type no longer work in ES v0.90?

Elastic Stack Elasticsearch
1

The documentation
at http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/reference/index-modules/fielddata/
seems to indicate that the index.cache.field* settings are no longer
supported in 0.90. Am I understanding this correct?

My primary interest is in using soft reference field caches. Is this
possible in 0.90?

~joe!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

2

I looked into this when I first migrated to 0.90.x. I think the correct
setting is
indices.fielddata.cache: soft

Ultimately, the memory usage is vastly improved in 0.90.x, that it was
better to have the cache not be soft.

--
Ivan

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Joseph Smith joseph.smith.tm@gmail.comwrote:

The documentation at
Elasticsearch Platform — Find real-time answers at scale | Elastic to indicate that the index.cache.field* settings are no longer
supported in 0.90. Am I understanding this correct?

My primary interest is in using soft reference field caches. Is this
possible in 0.90?

~joe!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"elasticsearch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

3

Judging from what I've seen online, I think there is a lot of confusion
around what can be set via the index.* or via indices.* (which I assume is
set at in the yaml file).

It would be really great if the online documentation were more clear.

This is the most useful post I have found thus far: *
0.90 facet memory issue? · Issue #2838 · elastic/elasticsearch · GitHub* .

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:46:11 PM UTC-4, Ivan Brusic wrote:

I looked into this when I first migrated to 0.90.x. I think the correct
setting is
indices.fielddata.cache: soft

Ultimately, the memory usage is vastly improved in 0.90.x, that it was
better to have the cache not be soft.

--
Ivan

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Joseph Smith <joseph....@gmail.com<javascript:>

wrote:

The documentation at
Elasticsearch Platform — Find real-time answers at scale | Elastic to indicate that the index.cache.field* settings are no longer
supported in 0.90. Am I understanding this correct?

My primary interest is in using soft reference field caches. Is this
possible in 0.90?

~joe!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"elasticsearch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to elasticsearc...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

4

I haven't tested it, but perhaps both settings might be valid, with
indices.fielddata having precedence:

https://github.com/elasticsearch/elasticsearch/blob/master/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/index/fielddata/IndexFieldDataService.java#L145

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Joseph Smith joseph.smith.tm@gmail.comwrote:

Judging from what I've seen online, I think there is a lot of confusion
around what can be set via the index.* or via indices.* (which I assume is
set at in the yaml file).

It would be really great if the online documentation were more clear.

This is the most useful post I have found thus far: *
0.90 facet memory issue? · Issue #2838 · elastic/elasticsearch · GitHub* .

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:46:11 PM UTC-4, Ivan Brusic wrote:

I looked into this when I first migrated to 0.90.x. I think the correct
setting is
indices.fielddata.cache: soft

Ultimately, the memory usage is vastly improved in 0.90.x, that it was
better to have the cache not be soft.

--
Ivan

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Joseph Smith joseph....@gmail.comwrote:

The documentation at http://www.elasticsearch.**
org/guide/reference/index-*modules/fielddata/http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/reference/index-modules/fielddata/seems to indicate that the index.cache.field settings are no longer
supported in 0.90. Am I understanding this correct?

My primary interest is in using soft reference field caches. Is this
possible in 0.90?

~joe!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "elasticsearch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to elasticsearc...@**googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"elasticsearch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.