-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Cross cluster aggregations don't include cluster alias in _index #25606
Labels
Comments
5 tasks
spalger
changed the title
Cross Cluster aggregations don't include cluster in _index
Cross cluster aggregations don't include cluster alias in _index
Jul 7, 2017
s1monw
added a commit
to s1monw/elasticsearch
that referenced
this issue
Jul 10, 2017
We lost the cluster alias due to some special caseing in inner hits and due to the fact that we didn't pass on the alias to the shard request. This change ensures that we have the cluster alias present on the shard to ensure all SearchShardTarget reads preserve the alias. Relates to elastic#25606
javanna
added
the
:Search/Search
Search-related issues that do not fall into other categories
label
Jul 11, 2017
s1monw
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 11, 2017
We lost the cluster alias due to some special caseing in inner hits and due to the fact that we didn't pass on the alias to the shard request. This change ensures that we have the cluster alias present on the shard to ensure all SearchShardTarget reads preserve the alias. Relates to #25606
s1monw
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 11, 2017
We lost the cluster alias due to some special caseing in inner hits and due to the fact that we didn't pass on the alias to the shard request. This change ensures that we have the cluster alias present on the shard to ensure all SearchShardTarget reads preserve the alias. Relates to #25606
s1monw
added a commit
to s1monw/elasticsearch
that referenced
this issue
Jul 25, 2017
Today when we aggregate on the `_index` field the cross cluster search alias is not taken into account. Neither is it respected when we search on the field. This change adds support for cluster alias when the cluster alias is present on the `_index` field. Closes elastic#25606
s1monw
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 26, 2017
Today when we aggregate on the `_index` field the cross cluster search alias is not taken into account. Neither is it respected when we search on the field. This change adds support for cluster alias when the cluster alias is present on the `_index` field. Closes #25606
s1monw
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 26, 2017
Today when we aggregate on the `_index` field the cross cluster search alias is not taken into account. Neither is it respected when we search on the field. This change adds support for cluster alias when the cluster alias is present on the `_index` field. Closes #25606
s1monw
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 26, 2017
Today when we aggregate on the `_index` field the cross cluster search alias is not taken into account. Neither is it respected when we search on the field. This change adds support for cluster alias when the cluster alias is present on the `_index` field. Closes #25606
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
Elasticsearch version: master
Plugins installed: none
JVM version: 1.8.0_121
OS version: macOS
Description of the problem including expected versus actual behavior:
When running a search on a remote cluster, remote documents include the cluster alias in the
_index
field so that the document can be properly addressed. This behavior does not apply to aggregations. When doing aterms
agg on_index
for instance, the terms do not include the cluster alias. Thetop_hits
agg also doesn't enhance_index
with the cluster alias.Steps to reproduce:
Start a node that remotes to itself
Index a document
Execute a search for the document via local and remote index names, which results in two unique documents (correct behavior) but one index term in the aggs and what appears to be two identical
top_hits
results:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: