Ignore the bit about high cardinality. IMO, the use of fielddata for date_historgram is counter intuitive, since the buckets made a ranges as defined by the grain, and therefore the buckets are pre-defined in a sense which means the inverted index should itself be sufficient for building the buckets, fielddata is not required.
Is this how a date_histogram actually behaves under the covers ? On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 1:43:13 PM UTC-7, Anant Aneja wrote: > > I was reading up on when ES builds fielddata : > https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/guide/current/fielddata.html > > A footnote on this page reads 'It is required for any operation that needs > to look up the value contained in a specific document'. > > Would this also be true when building buckets in a date_histogram > aggregation ? Date fields are bound to have high cardinalilty so I would > imagine that if populating fielddata would be counterproductive. > > In what cases while building aggregations does the above mentioned pattern > not apply ? > > > -- 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/fdd817e6-7ac2-49be-862b-947492da2dda%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
