# Performance impact of long field name and date type **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [July 29, 2013, 12:29pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-impact-of-long-field-name-and-date-type/12985 "2013-07-29T12:29:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Maaz\_Bin\_Tariq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@Maaz\_Bin\_Tariq](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Maaz_Bin_Tariq)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 12:29pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-impact-of-long-field-name-and-date-type/12985/1 "2013-07-29T12:29:45Z")
Hi I am investigating performance impact of long fields name in document example _created\_timestamp\_field1_ vs _ctf1_ _Q1) Which is preferred or best practice for field value and is there any performance / storage benefit?_ \* \* Also is there any impact of storing date as long or in some format example _0000_ vs _1 Jan 1970 00:00:00._ date is eventually converted in long so not sure there is any impact of it in performance or storage _Q2) Is there any impact of using any of the above date value?_ \* \* Thanks -Maaz -- 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:** ![Maaz\_Bin\_Tariq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@Maaz\_Bin\_Tariq](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Maaz_Bin_Tariq)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 5:14am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-impact-of-long-field-name-and-date-type/12985/2 "2013-07-30T05:14:00Z")
Can some one help me on this? On Monday, July 29, 2013 5:29:45 PM UTC+5, Maaz Bin Tariq wrote: > Hi > > I am investigating performance impact of long fields name in document > example _created\_timestamp\_field1_ vs _ctf1_ > _Q1) Which is preferred or best practice for field value and is there > any performance / storage benefit?_ > \* > \* > Also is there any impact of storing date as long or in some format > example _0000_ vs _1 Jan 1970 00:00:00._ > date is eventually converted in long so not sure there is any impact of it > in performance or storage > _Q2) Is there any impact of using any of the above date value?_ > \* > \* > Thanks > -Maaz -- 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:** ![dadoonet](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/dadoonet/32/137187_2.png) [@dadoonet](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/dadoonet)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2013, 5:53am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-impact-of-long-field-name-and-date-type/12985/3 "2013-07-30T05:53:49Z")
A1) may a little storage benefit when \_source is stored (default). IMHO, the more sense you give to a field using its field name, the better readabilty you will get when maintening your application. Also, depending to your use case, users (experts) could have access to query parser and use notation like field:value. In that case, having some meaning in field naming could help. A2) dates are converted to ms since epoch. I don't think you should worry about it. ## HTH David 😉 Twitter : @dadoonet / @elasticsearchfr / @scrutmydocs Le 30 juil. 2013 à 07:14, Maaz [maaz786@gmail.com](mailto:maaz786@gmail.com) a écrit : Can some one help me on this? On Monday, July 29, 2013 5:29:45 PM UTC+5, Maaz Bin Tariq wrote: > Hi > > I am investigating performance impact of long fields name in document > example created\_timestamp\_field1 vs ctf1 > Q1) Which is preferred or best practice for field value and is there any performance / storage benefit? > > Also is there any impact of storing date as long or in some format > example 0000 vs 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00. > date is eventually converted in long so not sure there is any impact of it in performance or storage > Q2) Is there any impact of using any of the above date value? > > Thanks > -Maaz > -- > 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). -- 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, 2:23am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-impact-of-long-field-name-and-date-type/12985/4 "2017-07-06T02:23:52Z")