Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Should we flag safeguards that have been exceeded? #67

Closed
eskibars opened this issue Sep 16, 2016 · 1 comment
Closed

Should we flag safeguards that have been exceeded? #67

eskibars opened this issue Sep 16, 2016 · 1 comment
Labels
question v2.x

Comments

@eskibars
Copy link

For example, if a user has a large shard count (elastic/elasticsearch#17396), a large number of fields in their mapping (elastic/elasticsearch#17357), a large number of nested fields (elastic/elasticsearch#14983), or a very high depth in their mappings (elastic/elasticsearch#17400), they may switch over to 5.0 and have unexpected results. We could detect this in the migration assistant prior to the upgrade and provide some help.
clintongormley added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 22, 2016
@clintongormley
Added checks for mapping limits: number of fields, number of nested f…
8398e30 
…ields, max depth

Closes #67
@clintongormley
Copy link
Contributor

Fixed in 2.0.0-beta1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
question v2.x
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@clintongormley @eskibars