Does this appear in the documentation? I looked quickly and didn't find
anything that warned users from doing this. This may seem obvious to a
developer but I don't think it is for users. Types "seem" to segment the
index into independent portions, but in fact they are very closely related
(much more so than it appears).
Should I open an issue for documenting this? I'd be glad to contribute some
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 05:26, Shay Banon firstname.lastname@example.org:
Yes, that can lead to strange behavior, unless you make special care (in
some features that support it) to use type_name.field_name. In general, its
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 at 12:24 PM, maho wrote:
thats interesting... so you should not define fields with the same
name but different data types in different index types?
On 12 Mai, 10:58, Shay Banon shay.ba...@elasticsearch.com wrote:
In elasticsearch, a field named "x" in different types is considered the
same field in Lucene. The number of fields affects the memory usage (for
search) mainly. The option to store _source means that you don't have to
store each one and get all at once.
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Lukáš Vlček wrote:
As for the second question you can simply use index templates:
I am not sure about the impact of high number of document fields but I
think that 1500 fields per index should ok (it probably gets down to the
content of your data so you should try it and measure). Generally, Lucene is
designed to allows a unique set of fields per document in one index.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:22 AM, maho mathias.hod...@gmail.com wrote:
is there a maximum number of fields per index you should not exceed
because performance issues?
In my case I have 10 types per index and 150 fields per type -
summarized 1500 fields per index.
And secondly, is it possible to define type independed fields that
apply all types to reduce the amount of fields per indes?