Bernhard, I would suggest to experiment and see what you find. I've created indexes with 10 fields, and others with hundreds of fields. Performance should not be a problem (but experiment anyway). I would be more concerned with maintainability/usability of your index, i.e. is it easier for you/your clients to query your index using normalized fields or denormalized fields.
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:38:12 AM UTC-5, Bernhard Berger wrote: > > I want to save a filter over a category-field (with about 5 distinct > values) of my Elasticsearch documents and ask me if I could use > different field names for every category instead. > > F.ex. instead of the fields: > "category", "date" > I would use > "dateRed", "dateBlue", "dateGreen" > > So to get all dates from category red I could use "dateRed" instead of > "date && Filter(category=Red)". > > I know, I could use different types for every category, but the > documents share some common fields together. > > Does Elasticsearch scale well when I use lot of different fields (~100 > fields) in my documents or is it better to keep the field number small? > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/19f2b153-cd7a-4732-9a2c-f7e3cc7328df%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
