+1 to that, Simon. Do we have a sense of if there are utilities provided by ES to do this kind of migration transformation easily?
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:37 AM Simon Elliston Ball < si...@simonellistonball.com> wrote: > I would definitely agree that the transformation should be removed. We have > now however added a complex generic solution in the backend, which is going > to be noop for most people. This was done I believe for the sake of > backward compatibility. I would argue however, that there is no need to > support ES 2.3, and therefore no need to support de-dotting > transformations. This does seem somewhat over-engineered to me, though it > does save people re-indexing on upgrades. I suspect in reality that this is > a rare edge case, and that we would do far better to settle on one solution > (the dotted version, not the colons, to my mind) > > Simon > > On 5 June 2018 at 06:29, Ryan Merriman <merrim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- > simon elliston ball > @sireb >
