I agree completely.  I will leave this thread open for a day or two to give
others a chance to weigh in.  If no one opposes, I will creates Jiras for
removing field transformations and transforming existing data.

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, on write it is a transformation, on read it's a translation.  This is
> to say that you're providing a mapping on read to translate field names
> given the index you're using.  The other approach that I was considering
> last night is a field transformation REST call which translates field names
> that the UI could call.  So, the UI would pass 'source.type' to the field
> translation service and in Solr it'd return source.type and in ES it'd
> return source:type.  Underneath the hood the service would use the same
> transformation as the writer uses.  That's another way to skin this cat.
>
> Ultimately, I think we should just ditch this field transformation
> business, as Laurens said, as long as we have a utility to transform
> existing data.
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:54 AM Ryan Merriman <merrim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Having 2 different patterns for configuring field name transformations on
> > read vs write is confusing to me.  I agree with both of you that
> > normalizing on '.' and not having to do the translation at all would be
> > ideal.  Like you both suggested, we would need some utility or script to
> > convert preexisting data to match this format.  There could also be some
> > adjustments a user would need to make in the UI but I feel like we could
> > document around that.  Are there any objections to doing it this way?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Laurens Vets <laur...@daemon.be> wrote:
> >
> > > ES 2.x support officially ended 4 months ago (
> > > https://www.elastic.co/support/eol), so why still support ':' at all?
> :)
> > > Additionally, 2.x isn't even supported at all on the last 2 Ubuntu LTS
> > > releases (16.04 & 18.05).
> > >
> > > Therefor, move everything to use '.' and provide a conversion/upgrade
> > > script to change '.' to ':'?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2018-06-04 13:55, Ryan Merriman wrote:
> > >
> > >> We've been dealing with a reoccurring challenge in Metron.  It is
> common
> > >> for various fields to contain '.' characters for the purpose of making
> > >> them
> > >> more readable, namespacing, etc.  At one point we only supported
> > >> Elasticsearch 2.3 which did not allow dots and forced us to use ':'
> > >> instead.  This limitation does not exist in later versions of
> > >> Elasticsearch
> > >> or Solr.
> > >>
> > >> Now we're in a situation where we need to allow a user to use either
> one
> > >> because they may still be using ES 2.3 or have data with ':'
> characters
> > in
> > >> field names.  We've attempted to make this configurable in a couple
> > >> different PRs:
> > >>
> > >> https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1022
> > >> https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1010
> > >> https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1038
> > >>
> > >> The approaches taken in these are not consistent and fall short in
> > >> different ways.  The first (METRON-1569 Allow user to change field
> name
> > >> conversion when indexing) only applies to indexing and not querying.
> > The
> > >> others only apply to a single field which does not scale well.  Now we
> > >> have
> > >> an issue with another field in
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1600.  Rather than
> > >> continuing
> > >> with a patchwork of different fixes I want to attempt to design a
> > >> system-wide solution.
> > >>
> > >> My first thought is to expand
> > https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1022
> > >> to
> > >> apply globally.  However this is not trivial and would require
> > significant
> > >> changes.  It would also make https://github.com/apache/
> metron/pull/1010
> > >> obsolete and we might end up having to revert all of it.
> > >>
> > >> Does anyone have any ideas or opinions?  I am still researching
> > solutions
> > >> but would love some guidance from the community.
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to