# NumericRangeFilter: failed to find mapping for field **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [March 18, 2013, 2:28pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/numericrangefilter-failed-to-find-mapping-for-field/11189 "2013-03-18T14:28:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![dawi](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/dawi/32/2439_2.png) [@dawi](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/dawi)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2013, 2:28pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/numericrangefilter-failed-to-find-mapping-for-field/11189/1 "2013-03-18T14:28:09Z")
Hi together, there are already a few "bug"-reports about this, but I couldn't find an official statement, if it is intended design or a bug. If you use a numeric range filter on an unmapped field, you will get a exception like this: org.elasticsearch.index.query.QueryParsingException: [default] failed to > find mapping for field [dateUnmapped] > at > org.elasticsearch.index.query.NumericRangeFilterParser.parse(NumericRangeFilterParser.java:115) > ~[elasticsearch-0.20.5.jar:na] > at > org.elasticsearch.index.query.QueryParseContext.parseInnerFilter(QueryParseContext.java:225) > ~[elasticsearch-0.20.5.jar:na] > at > org.elasticsearch.index.query.ConstantScoreQueryParser.parse(ConstantScoreQueryParser.java:68) > ~[elasticsearch-0.20.5.jar:na] The following posts go into the same direction: - [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/elasticsearch/FWivvwkSFpU/IH8ZgnwnG3gJ](https://groups.google.com/d/msg/elasticsearch/FWivvwkSFpU/IH8ZgnwnG3gJ) - [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/elasticsearch/kgigInbWBQQ/51Zk3eE0xB4J](https://groups.google.com/d/msg/elasticsearch/kgigInbWBQQ/51Zk3eE0xB4J) - [Allow facet "queries" to run against unmapped fields · Issue #2569 · elastic/elasticsearch · GitHub](https://github.com/elasticsearch/elasticsearch/issues/2569) For me it's more a bug than a feature, because the other filters are working on unmapped fields without problems. If there are no plans to change the behavior of numeric range filters, then I think the only solution for our application is to define all mappings manually and don't let elasticsearch create the mappings dynamically. Or am I missing something? Regards, Daniel -- 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](mailto:elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com). For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). ---
**Author:** ![brian\_yoder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f1d935/32.png) [@brian\_yoder](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/brian_yoder)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/numericrangefilter-failed-to-find-mapping-for-field/11189/2 "2013-03-18T16:45:39Z")
Daniel, I suspect that if you only load numeric data into a field, ES will dynamically map it as a numeric field. But then again, I have loaded 10-digit NANP telephone numbers (all digits) into fields and they were dynamically mapped as a string field. So I'm not really sue. The best advice I've seen is that ES dynamic mapping is great for getting started and coming up to speed. But for deterministic behavior in a production application, you should always create explicit settings+mappings in each index before you put data into that index. For my own ease of experimentation and development, I defined a simple "schema" that embodies the subset of ES mapping functions that I need, and then a tool to create the settings and mappings based on that "schema". It has greatly helped me keep my sanity! And starting with ES 20, I read that you can direct ES to fail to load any document with an unmapped field. Also note that one great side benefit to explicit mapping is to define multi-field mapping in which a field can be both a string and a number (for example). So you can issue prefix queries on the string for, and range filters against the numeric form. Bloats the index a little, but the exact same source is used. As one example. On Monday, March 18, 2013 10:28:09 AM UTC-4, dawi wrote: > Hi together, > > For me it's more a bug than a feature, because the other filters are > working on unmapped fields without problems. > > If there are no plans to change the behavior of numeric range filters, > then I think the only solution for our > application is to define all mappings manually and don't let elasticsearch > create the mappings dynamically. -- 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](mailto:elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com). For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). ---
**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2017, 2:46am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/numericrangefilter-failed-to-find-mapping-for-field/11189/3 "2017-07-06T02:46:03Z")