I'm using Elastic Search 5.6.2 with Kibana and I'm currently facing a problem
My documents are indexed on the field timestamp which is normally an integer, however recently somebody has logged a document with a timestamp that is not an integer, and Kibana complains of conflicting type.
The discover panels display nothing and the following errors pop:
Saved "field" parameter is now invalid. Please select a new field.
Discover: "field" is a required parameter
How can I look for the document(s) causing these conflicts so that to find the service creating bad logs ?
The field type (either integer or text/keyword) is not defined on per document basis but rather on per index basis (in the mappings). I guess you are manipulating timeseries data, and you probably have un index per day (or per month or ...).
In Kibana Dev Tools:
List the created indices with GET _cat/indices
For each index (logstash-2017.09.28 in my example) do a GET logstash-2017.09.28/_mapping and check the type of the field in #timestamp
The field type is probably different between indices.
You won't be able to change the field type on created indices. Deleting document won't solve you're problem. The only solution is to drop the index or reindex the whole index with a new field type (in a specific mapping).
To avoid this problem on future indices, the solution is to create an index template with a mapping telling that the field #timestamp is of type date or whatever.
Related
I'm in really weird situations, I need to create indexes in elasticsearch that contain typeless fields. I have a rails application that sends any data per second to my elasticsearch. about my architecture, I have to say I use elastic-stack on docker in ubuntu server and use socket to send data's to elk and all of them are the latest version.
In my rails application user could choose datatype for each field but the issues happen when the user want to change the datatype of one field right after it's created, logstash return this error
error"=>{"type"=>"mapper_parsing_exception", "reason"=>"failed to parse field [field] of type [long] in document with id '5e760cac-cafc-4fd0-9e45-1c650967ccd4'. Preview of field's value: '2022-01-18T08:06:30'", "caused_by"=>{"type"=>"illegal_argument_exception", "reason"=>"For input string: \"2022-01-18T08:06:30\
I found deadly queue letter plugins to save wrong input in my server after that I think if I could index documents without any type the problem is solved so I start to googling and found Removal of mapping types in elasticsearch documents and I follow instructions which describe in tutorials I get the following error:
unknown setting [index.include_type_name] please check that any required plugins are installed, or check the breaking changes documentation for removed settings
even I put "include_type_name" in the request to send to the elastic noting change I have the latest version of elastic.
I think maybe it's helpful to edit the default elasticsearch template but noting the change. could you please help me with what should I do?
As already mentioned in the comments, Elasticsearch does not support changing the data type of a field without a reindex or creating a new index.
For example, if a field is mapped as a numeric field like integer and the user wants to index a string value in this field, elasticsearch will return an mapping error.
You would need to change the mapping of the index and reindex it or create a entirely new index using the new mapping.
None of this is done automatically by elastic, you would need to deal with this in your application, you could catch the error and implement some logic to create a new index with the new mapping, but this also could lead to other problems as having too many indices in the cluster and query errors when the range of the query include index with the same field with different mappings.
One feature that Elasticsearch has that could help you in some way is the runtime fields, with runtime fields you can query a field that has a specific mapping using a different mapping.
For example, if you have a field that has date values, but was wrongly mapped as a keyword or text field, you could use a runtime field to query it as it was a date field.
But again, this will need that you implement a logic to build those runtime fields and also can lead to other problems, not all the data types are available to runtime fields and runtime fields can impact in the performance.
Another feature that could help you is to use of multi-fields, this, I think, is the closest you got of having a field with multiple data types.
Using multi-fields you could have a field named date with the date type and also a field named date.keyword with the keyword type, you also could have a field name code with the keyword type and a field name code.int with the integer type, you would also need to use the ignore_malformed setting in the mapping so elastic does not reject the entire document in case of mapping errors, just the field with the wrong mapping.
Just keep in mind that when use multi-fields, you will have a different field for each mapping, for example date is a field, date.keyword is another field, this will increase the storage usage.
But again, none of this is done automatically, it needs logic in your application, elasticsearch does not allows you to change the mapping of a field, if your application needs this, you will need to implement something in the application that can work with that limitations of elasticsearch.
I am using Elasticsearch 1.5.2. I created many indexes, and every index has a type and different fields. I want to modify the name of a field that exists in many indexes. How can I do it? The same thing for a type.
Sadly no.
You cannot change the name or type of the field once an index is created.
They have added some support for renaming fields in Elasticsearch 5.2
The only option is to recreate the index from the old index. ES-reindex tool might help you.
My index settings in Kibana tell me that I have fields with mapping conflicts in my logstash-* index patterns.
What is the easiest way to find out which fields have a conflicting mapping and/or in which indices the conflict occurs?
As of at least Kibana 5.2, you can type "conflict" into the Filter field, which will filter all fields down to only those which have a conflict. At the far right there is a column named "controls", and for each field it has a button with a pencil icon. Clicking that will tell you which indices have which mapping.
Fields filtered to only those with conflicts:
Indices in which field mapping conflicts:
You can easily find how fields are mapped using the mapping API in Kibana.
If you know you have a mapping conflict, I will assume you know the field name that has the conflict. These will be listed under Management/Index Patterns/index_pattern
If you have indices that are created daily, such as production-2020.06.16, you can search across all the indices with production*.
Go to Dev Tools and enter this query, changing the index pattern (production*) and conflictedFieldname to suit your needs.
GET production*/_mapping/field/conflictedFieldname
This will pull all indices that match the production* pattern and will list the mapping for conflictedFieldname for each index. Scroll through and see which one is not like the other one.
You can also check out the Elasticsearch documentation here: Elasticsearch documentation: Get Field Mapping API
The reason you're getting a conflict is because the first value that goes into the index is used by Elasticsearch to make its best guess as to what data type it should be. You can ensure it is always the same type by placing a template for the index pattern you are concerned with.
Elasticsearch documentation: Put Index Template
In Elasticsearch 5.5.2, you can click on the dropdown on the right of the Filter search box and select "conflict". This is in the Index Patterns page.
It should be easy to spot those in the list of fields, when defining the pattern. Something like this:
Since I couldn't locate the mapping conflict in the gui. I went down the hard path analysed my config for missing/conflicting field type found the offender and reindexed my data.
If you click the type column on the index patterns page where the warning is displayed, it should sort the indexes by type. Conflicted fields will have type 'conflict'.
I have an problem with the unique count feature.
I get data from elasticsearch for example an computer name (PC-01) in a field.
When i want to use a visualisation unique count then kibana makes from "DESKTOP-2D562R2" -> "DESKTOP" and "2D562R2" as a entery.
See this splitted field:
The data kibana gets from elastic search looks like this entery data:
The problem with this is that 2d562r2 and desktop two different "enterys" are in a kibana table or with unique count.
Your field is being analyzed (split into tokens). Change the mapping (or template, depending on how you're creating the indexes) to make this field not_analyzed.
Note that, as a hack, logstash's default template creates a ".raw" version of string fields that is not analyzed. You could refer to enterys.raw.
I have a document whose structure changes often, how can I index nested documents inside it without changing the mapping on ElasticSearch?
You can index documents in Elasticsearch without providing a mapping yes.
However, Elasticsearch makes a decision about the type of a field when the first document contains a value for that field. If you add document 1 and it has a field called item_code, and in document 1 item_code is a string, Elasticsearch will set the type of field "item_code" to be string. If document 2 has an integer value in item_code Elasticsearch will have already set the type as string.
Basically, field type is index dependant, not document dependant.
This is mainly because of Apache Lucene and the way it handles this information.
If you're having a case where some data structure changes, while other doesn't, you could use an object type, http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/mapping-object-type.html.
You can even go as far as to use "enabled": false on it, which makes elasticsearch just store the data. You couldn't search it anymore, but maybe you actually don't even want that?