quick follow-up -- of course using my own long-valued field seems to work just fine, but I would still like to understand what's going on here. It might be nice to have the internally-generated behavior as a fallback?
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 1:18:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Sokolov wrote: > > I need to be able to provide timestamps that will be preserved by ES. I'm > using the _timestamp field (although perhaps I shouldn't, because) it seems > that the values I provide are being ignored, and the current date-time is > being inserted instead. My mapping configuration looks like this: > > dynamic: strict > > _source: > enabled: false > > _all: > enabled: false > > _timestamp: > type: date > enabled: true > index: not_analyzed > store: true > > properties: > ... > > I've tried providing the times as longs, as longs converted to strings, as > ISO-formatted date-times (YYYYMMDDThhmmss.SSS), but nothing seems to have > any effect -- I might as well provide 0. > > I'm inserting documents using the Java client API by creating a Map, with > key="_timestamp" and values as described above. > > Has anybody run across this before? It seems like a very standard use > case if you want to keep a consistent timestamp across a cluster, or in any > way copy documents without updating their timestamps. > > -Mike > -- 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/b948a29d-92af-45c4-9491-97e9b6495615%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
