# Elastic Multi tenancy shared index **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [November 24, 2022, 4:14pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elastic-multi-tenancy-shared-index/319770 "2022-11-24T16:14:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Zedson.Sagar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Zedson.Sagar](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Zedson.Sagar)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2022, 4:14pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elastic-multi-tenancy-shared-index/319770/1 "2022-11-24T16:14:33Z")
Hi, we are planning to use Elasticsearch in a multi tenant environment. Based on the article here - [https://www.elastic.co/blog/found-multi-tenancy](https://www.elastic.co/blog/found-multi-tenancy) We want to use a shared index model for all the tenants but are stumbled across an issue with field mapping collision i.e. TenantA can have fields 1,2,3 where as TenantB can have fields 2,4,5 if we keep adding these fields to the index i think we might hit the 1000 field size limit. Any adivce on how to over come this issue? thanks in advance ---
**Author:** ![warkolm](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/warkolm/32/39224_2.png) [@warkolm](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/warkolm)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2022, 1:08am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elastic-multi-tenancy-shared-index/319770/2 "2022-11-30T01:08:55Z")
You could do something like; ```auto { { "custom_field0": "field_1", "value": "whatever"}, { "custom_field1": "field_2", "value": "something else"} } ``` And then repeat that. ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Dahlqvist](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/christian_dahlqvist/32/4617_2.png) [@Christian\_Dahlqvist](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Christian_Dahlqvist)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2022, 7:17am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elastic-multi-tenancy-shared-index/319770/3 "2022-11-30T07:17:59Z")
How are you exposing the data? Do you have an application layer between the user and the data? Do you allow users to use Kibana or other types of more direct access? ---
**Author:** ![Zedson.Sagar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Zedson.Sagar](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Zedson.Sagar)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2022, 7:41am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elastic-multi-tenancy-shared-index/319770/4 "2022-11-30T07:41:40Z")
@Christian_Dahlqvist thanks for the reply. Yes, we have an application layer between User and Data. No, we are not going to expose Kibana for users but we will for administrators. ---
**Author:** ![Zedson.Sagar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Zedson.Sagar](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Zedson.Sagar)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2022, 7:45am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elastic-multi-tenancy-shared-index/319770/5 "2022-11-30T07:45:01Z")
@warkolm thanks for the reply. I believe your answer would address the field mapping collision. Question is on number of fields, if there are 10 tenants that are going to use the shared index and each tenant has 10 distinct fields then all 10 tenants will exhaust the limit of 1000 fields limit for an index making it not possible to add new tenants. Is there a way i can change the fields per tenants that will not hit the limit? ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Dahlqvist](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/christian_dahlqvist/32/4617_2.png) [@Christian\_Dahlqvist](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Christian_Dahlqvist)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2022, 7:52am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elastic-multi-tenancy-shared-index/319770/6 "2022-11-30T07:52:03Z")
One way I have seen this addressed in the past is through a translation layer at the application layer where the customer field names are mapped to standard names that are shared across tenants. This assumes each tenant only ever has access to its own data. You would e.g. have a number of defined fields per type, e.g. `string_field_1`, `string_field_2`, `long_field_1`, `long_field_2`, `date_field_1`, `date_field_2` etc. Tenant 1 may have a `name` field that gets mapped to `string_field_1` while tenant 2 could have a `category` field mapped to `string_field_1`. This naturally has an impact on relevancy and scoring, but as each user only has access to their own documents this may be acceptable. Another benefit of this approach is that you avoid mapping conflicts, which would happen if 2 tenants wanted to store different data in a field with the same name. ---
**Author:** ![gjahagir](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/gjahagir/32/125175_2.png) [@gjahagir](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/gjahagir)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2022, 11:52am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elastic-multi-tenancy-shared-index/319770/7 "2022-11-30T11:52:47Z")
@Christian_Dahlqvist If tenant1 has 2 string fields Name and Description then those will be mapped under **`Tenant_1_string_field`** something like ```auto Tenant_1_string_field: { "custom_field0": "Name", "value": "whatever"}, { "custom_field1": "Description", "value": "something else"} ``` Is this correct? if so, are there any limitations in number of subfields? also, what about search are all queries supported? ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Dahlqvist](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/christian_dahlqvist/32/4617_2.png) [@Christian\_Dahlqvist](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Christian_Dahlqvist)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2022, 12:27pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elastic-multi-tenancy-shared-index/319770/8 "2022-11-30T12:27:29Z")
No. I. am not sure what Mark is suggesting, but suspect it relates to using nested documents, which can have a significant impact on how you query the data as well as performance. Assume tenant1 has a field named `name` (`string`, translated to `string_field_1`) and another field named `age` (`long`, translated to `long_field_2`) and submit the following document: > { > "name": "Bob", > "age": 32 > } This would be stored in Elasticsearch as follows: > { > "tenant": "tenant1", > "string\_field\_1": "Bob", > "long\_field\_2": 32 > } Naturally this keeps the number of fields in the index down and avoids mapping conflicts as all tenants use the same fields. It however means that all documents submitted and requested by the client need to be translated and queries will need to be rewritten, which requires a dictionary in your application. This complicates the application tier quite a bit, but should scale and perform well. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2022, 12:27pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elastic-multi-tenancy-shared-index/319770/9 "2022-12-28T12:27:59Z")
This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.