WARNING: Version 5.6 of Elasticsearch has passed its EOL date.
This documentation is no longer being maintained and may be removed. If you are running this version, we strongly advise you to upgrade. For the latest information, see the current release documentation.
Removal of mapping types
editRemoval of mapping types
editIndices created in Elasticsearch 6.0.0 or later may only contain a single mapping type. Indices created in 5.x with multiple mapping types will continue to function as before in Elasticsearch 6.x. Types will be deprecated in APIs in Elasticsearch 7.0.0, and completely removed in 8.0.0.
What are mapping types?
editSince the first release of Elasticsearch, each document has been stored in a
single index and assigned a single mapping type. A mapping type was used to
represent the type of document or entity being indexed, for instance a
twitter
index might have a user
type and a tweet
type.
Each mapping type could have its own fields, so the user
type might have a
full_name
field, a user_name
field, and an email
field, while the
tweet
type could have a content
field, a tweeted_at
field and, like the
user
type, a user_name
field.
Each document had a _type
meta-field containing the type name, and searches
could be limited to one or more types by specifying the type name(s) in the
URL:
GET twitter/user,tweet/_search { "query": { "match": { "user_name": "kimchy" } } }
The _type
field was combined with the document’s _id
to generate a _uid
field, so documents of different types with the same _id
could exist in a
single index.
Mapping types were also used to establish a
parent-child relationship
between documents, so documents of type question
could be parents to
documents of type answer
.
Why are mapping types being removed?
editInitially, we spoke about an “index” being similar to a “database” in an SQL database, and a “type” being equivalent to a “table”.
This was a bad analogy that led to incorrect assumptions. In an SQL database, tables are independent of each other. The columns in one table have no bearing on columns with the same name in another table. This is not the case for fields in a mapping type.
In an Elasticsearch index, fields that have the same name in different mapping
types are backed by the same Lucene field internally. In other words, using
the example above, the user_name
field in the user
type is stored in
exactly the same field as the user_name
field in the tweet
type, and both
user_name
fields must have the same mapping (definition) in both types.
This can lead to frustration when, for example, you want deleted
to be a
date
field in one type and a boolean
field in another type in the same
index.
On top of that, storing different entities that have few or no fields in common in the same index leads to sparse data and interferes with Lucene’s ability to compress documents efficiently.
For these reasons, we have decided to remove the concept of mapping types from Elasticsearch.
Alternatives to mapping types
editIndex per document type
editThe first alternative is to have an index per document type. Instead of
storing tweets and users in a single twitter
index, you could store tweets
in the tweets
index and users in the user
index. Indices are completely
independent of each other and so there will be no conflict of field types
between indices.
This approach has two benefits:
- Data is more likely to be dense and so benefit from compression techniques used in Lucene.
- The term statistics used for scoring in full text search are more likely to be accurate because all documents in the same index represent a single entity.
Each index can be sized appropriately for the number of documents it will
contain: you can use a smaller number of primary shards for users
and a
larger number of primary shards for tweets
.
Custom type field
editOf course, there is a limit to how many primary shards can exist in a cluster
so you may not want to waste an entire shard for a collection of only a few
thousand documents. In this case, you can implement your own custom type
field which will work in a similar way to the old _type
.
Let’s take the user
/tweet
example above. Originally, the workflow would
have looked something like this:
PUT twitter { "mappings": { "user": { "properties": { "name": { "type": "text" }, "user_name": { "type": "keyword" }, "email": { "type": "keyword" } } }, "tweet": { "properties": { "content": { "type": "text" }, "user_name": { "type": "keyword" }, "tweeted_at": { "type": "date" } } } } } PUT twitter/user/kimchy { "name": "Shay Banon", "user_name": "kimchy", "email": "[email protected]" } PUT twitter/tweet/1 { "user_name": "kimchy", "tweeted_at": "2017-10-24T09:00:00Z", "content": "Types are going away" } GET twitter/tweet/_search { "query": { "match": { "user_name": "kimchy" } } }
You could achieve the same thing by adding a custom type
field as follows:
PUT twitter { "mappings": { "doc": { "properties": { "type": { "type": "keyword" }, "name": { "type": "text" }, "user_name": { "type": "keyword" }, "email": { "type": "keyword" }, "content": { "type": "text" }, "tweeted_at": { "type": "date" } } } } } PUT twitter/doc/user-kimchy { "type": "user", "name": "Shay Banon", "user_name": "kimchy", "email": "[email protected]" } PUT twitter/doc/tweet-1 { "type": "tweet", "user_name": "kimchy", "tweeted_at": "2017-10-24T09:00:00Z", "content": "Types are going away" } GET twitter/_search { "query": { "bool": { "must": { "match": { "user_name": "kimchy" } }, "filter": { "match": { "type": "tweet" } } } } }
Parent/Child without mapping types
editPreviously, a parent-child relationship was represented by making one mapping
type the parent, and one or more other mapping types the children. Without
types, we can no longer use this syntax. The parent-child feature will
continue to function as before, except that the way of expressing the
relationship between documents has been changed to use the new
join
field.
Schedule for removal of mapping types
editThis is a big change for our users, so we have tried to make it as painless as possible. The change will roll out as follows:
- Elasticsearch 5.6.0
-
-
Setting
index.mapping.single_type: true
on an index will enable the single-type-per-index behaviour which will be enforced in 6.0. -
The
join
field replacement for parent-child is available on indices created in 5.6.
-
Setting
- Elasticsearch 6.x
-
- Indices created in 5.x will continue to function in 6.x as they did in 5.x.
- Indices created in 6.x only allow a single-type per index. Any name can be used for the type, but there can be only one.
-
The
_type
name can no longer be combined with the_id
to form the_uid
field. The_uid
field has become an alias for the_id
field. -
New indices no longer support the old-style of parent/child and should
use the
join
field instead. -
The
_default_
mapping type is deprecated. -
In 6.7, the index creation, index template, and mapping APIs support a query
string parameter (
include_type_name
) which indicates whether requests and responses should include a type name. It defaults totrue
, and should be set to an explicit value to prepare to upgrade to 7.0. Not settinginclude_type_name
will result in a deprecation warning. Indices which don’t have an explicit type will use the dummy type name_doc
.
- Elasticsearch 7.x
-
-
Specifying types in requests is deprecated. For instance, indexing a
document no longer requires a document
type
. The new index APIs arePUT {index}/_doc/{id}
in case of explicit ids andPOST {index}/_doc
for auto-generated ids. -
The
include_type_name
parameter in the index creation, index template, and mapping APIs will default tofalse
. Setting the parameter at all will result in a deprecation warning. -
The
_default_
mapping type is removed.
-
Specifying types in requests is deprecated. For instance, indexing a
document no longer requires a document
- Elasticsearch 8.x
-
- Specifying types in requests is no longer supported.
-
The
include_type_name
parameter is removed.
Migrating multi-type indices to single-type
editThe Reindex API can be used to convert multi-type indices to
single-type indices. The following examples can be used in Elasticsearch 5.6
or Elasticsearch 6.x. In 6.x, there is no need to specify
index.mapping.single_type
as that is the default.
Index per document type
editThis first example splits our twitter
index into a tweets
index and a
users
index:
PUT users { "settings": { "index.mapping.single_type": true }, "mappings": { "user": { "properties": { "name": { "type": "text" }, "user_name": { "type": "keyword" }, "email": { "type": "keyword" } } } } } PUT tweets { "settings": { "index.mapping.single_type": true }, "mappings": { "tweet": { "properties": { "content": { "type": "text" }, "user_name": { "type": "keyword" }, "tweeted_at": { "type": "date" } } } } } POST _reindex { "source": { "index": "twitter", "type": "user" }, "dest": { "index": "users" } } POST _reindex { "source": { "index": "twitter", "type": "tweet" }, "dest": { "index": "tweets" } }
Custom type field
editThis next example adds a custom type
field and sets it to the value of the
original _type
. It also adds the type to the _id
in case there are any
documents of different types which have conflicting IDs:
PUT new_twitter { "mappings": { "doc": { "properties": { "type": { "type": "keyword" }, "name": { "type": "text" }, "user_name": { "type": "keyword" }, "email": { "type": "keyword" }, "content": { "type": "text" }, "tweeted_at": { "type": "date" } } } } } POST _reindex { "source": { "index": "twitter" }, "dest": { "index": "new_twitter" }, "script": { "source": """ ctx._source.type = ctx._type; ctx._id = ctx._type + '-' + ctx._id; ctx._type = 'doc'; """ } }