# Mapping Explosion on Non-Indexed Fields?

**URL:** <https://discuss.elastic.co/t/mapping-explosion-on-non-indexed-fields/104580>\
**Category:** Elasticsearch\
**Created:** [October 19, 2017, 3:41pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/mapping-explosion-on-non-indexed-fields/104580 "2017-10-19T15:41:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![HJewkes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c67d28/32.png) [@HJewkes](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/HJewkes)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 3:41pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/mapping-explosion-on-non-indexed-fields/104580/1 "2017-10-19T15:41:50Z")

</div>

I am familiar with the [Mapping Explosion](https://www.elastic.co/blog/found-crash-elasticsearch) problem, but am unclear if it applies to fields that are not indexed in Lucene.

My intention is to store a properties object that has a high cardinality of keys (on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands per month). These fields are purely to be used for scripted aggregations and have no need to be searched against. I am unclear if we would run into the same issues performance issues as in the mapping explosion case, or if there is a storage method that makes them purely available for aggregation without the performance impact.

---

<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:** [November 16, 2017, 3:54pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/mapping-explosion-on-non-indexed-fields/104580/2 "2017-11-16T15:54:59Z")

</div>

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