# Shard error on elasticsearch upgrade **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [July 12, 2013, 6:05pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/shard-error-on-elasticsearch-upgrade/12776 "2013-07-12T18:05:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ivan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/df788c/32.png) [@Ivan](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Ivan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 6:05pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/shard-error-on-elasticsearch-upgrade/12776/1 "2013-07-12T18:05:41Z")
Finally upgrade our production cluster from 0.20.0RC2 to 0.90.2. Using the old index built with 0.20, we started getting NumberFormatExceptions. Example query: "\_shards": { "total": 8, "successful": 7, "failed": 1, "failures": [ { "index": "foo", "shard": 7, "status": 500, "reason": "RemoteTransportException[[...][inet[/....159:9300]][search/phase/query]]; nested: QueryPhaseExecutionException[[foo][7]: query[...],from[0],size[40]: Query Failed [Failed to execute main query]]; nested: ElasticSearchException[java.lang.NumberFormatException: Invalid shift value (64) in prefixCoded bytes (is encoded value really an INT?)]; nested: UncheckedExecutionException[java.lang.NumberFormatException: Invalid shift value (64) in prefixCoded bytes (is encoded value really an INT?)]; nested: NumberFormatException[Invalid shift value (64) in prefixCoded bytes (is encoded value really an INT?)]; " } ] } In this example, 1 shard out of 8 is failing because of an invalid shard. We saw this issue when we upgraded our development cluster, but ignored it because it was only the development cluster. A full reindex with the latest version made the issue go away, and we are hoping the same holds true this time around as well. Cheers, Ivan -- 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:** ![Ivan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/df788c/32.png) [@Ivan](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Ivan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/shard-error-on-elasticsearch-upgrade/12776/2 "2013-07-12T18:23:09Z")
I pruned the query until I was able to get a minimal query that would break. The issue occurs while faceting on one specific field. Failure: { "query" : { "match\_all" : { } }, "facets" : { "CatalogID" : { "terms" : { "field" : "CatalogID", "size" : 20 } } } } Where the mapping is CatalogID: { type: long } Querying on that field with no facets works fine. This facet is one of many, most of which are long fields. Cheers, Ivan On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Ivan Brusic [ivan@brusic.com](mailto:ivan@brusic.com) wrote: > Finally upgrade our production cluster from 0.20.0RC2 to 0.90.2. Using > the old index built with 0.20, we started getting NumberFormatExceptions. > > Example query: > > "\_shards": { > "total": 8, > "successful": 7, > "failed": 1, > "failures": [ > { > "index": "foo", > "shard": 7, > "status": 500, > "reason": > "RemoteTransportException[[...][inet[/....159:9300]][search/phase/query]]; > nested: QueryPhaseExecutionException[[foo][7]: query[...],from[0],size[40]: > Query Failed [Failed to execute main query]]; nested: > ElasticSearchException[java.lang.NumberFormatException: Invalid shift value > (64) in prefixCoded bytes (is encoded value really an INT?)]; nested: > UncheckedExecutionException[java.lang.NumberFormatException: Invalid shift > value (64) in prefixCoded bytes (is encoded value really an INT?)]; nested: > NumberFormatException[Invalid shift value (64) in prefixCoded bytes (is > encoded value really an INT?)]; " > } > ] > } > > In this example, 1 shard out of 8 is failing because of an invalid shard. > We saw this issue when we upgraded our development cluster, but ignored it > because it was only the development cluster. A full reindex with the latest > version made the issue go away, and we are hoping the same holds true this > time around as well. > > Cheers, > > Ivan -- 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:** ![vinh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/34f0e0/32.png) [@vinh](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/vinh)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/shard-error-on-elasticsearch-upgrade/12776/3 "2013-07-12T19:03:45Z")
Ivan, thanks for sharing this find! -Vinh On Jul 12, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Ivan Brusic [ivan@brusic.com](mailto:ivan@brusic.com) wrote: > I pruned the query until I was able to get a minimal query that would break. The issue occurs while faceting on one specific field. > > Failure: > { > "query" : { > "match\_all" : { } > }, > "facets" : { > "CatalogID" : { > "terms" : { > "field" : "CatalogID", > "size" : 20 > } > } > } > } > > Where the mapping is CatalogID: { type: long } > > Querying on that field with no facets works fine. This facet is one of many, most of which are long fields. > > Cheers, > > Ivan > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Ivan Brusic [ivan@brusic.com](mailto:ivan@brusic.com) wrote: > Finally upgrade our production cluster from 0.20.0RC2 to 0.90.2. Using the old index built with 0.20, we started getting NumberFormatExceptions. > > Example query: > > "\_shards": { > "total": 8, > "successful": 7, > "failed": 1, > "failures": [ > { > "index": "foo", > "shard": 7, > "status": 500, > "reason": "RemoteTransportException[[...][inet[/....159:9300]][search/phase/query]]; nested: QueryPhaseExecutionException[[foo][7]: query[...],from[0],size[40]: Query Failed [Failed to execute main query]]; nested: ElasticSearchException[java.lang.NumberFormatException: Invalid shift value (64) in prefixCoded bytes (is encoded value really an INT?)]; nested: UncheckedExecutionException[java.lang.NumberFormatException: Invalid shift value (64) in prefixCoded bytes (is encoded value really an INT?)]; nested: NumberFormatException[Invalid shift value (64) in prefixCoded bytes (is encoded value really an INT?)]; " > } > ] > } > > In this example, 1 shard out of 8 is failing because of an invalid shard. We saw this issue when we upgraded our development cluster, but ignored it because it was only the development cluster. A full reindex with the latest version made the issue go away, and we are hoping the same holds true this time around as well. > > Cheers, > > Ivan > > -- > 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, 2:26am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/shard-error-on-elasticsearch-upgrade/12776/4 "2017-07-06T02:26:42Z")