Question about template usage for ecs
See original GitHub issueHello,
As creator of the following project => https://github.com/OutsideIT/logstash_filter_f5
I’d prefer to follow ECS guidelines in the future and switch current fields if appropriate to ECS fields with dot notation. For now I always used underscores for all my fields, which makes this kind of new.
If I would create a template for some fields, eg.
"f5_tmm_session_bytes_in": {
"type": "long"
},
"f5_tmm_session_bytes_out": {
"type": "long"
},
And switch those to dot notated fields network.inbound.bytes
and network.outbound.bytes
, would this be the template that I would ideally use for those fields?
"network": {
"properties": {
"inbound": {
"properties": {
"bytes": {
"type": "long"
}
}
},
"outbound": {
"properties": {
"bytes": {
"type": "long"
}
}
},
}
}
I saw some examples which also have "type": "object"
in the template, but I didn’t see that everywhere (not in the beat.* object template for example)
Thanks for confirming the correct or incorrect use of my f5 template.
Another small question, I tend to use the ignore_above
parameter alot, which I don’t see anywhere in the ECS common field types. Are we ‘allowed’ to use the ignore_above
on ECS fields and can we set them as we want or would this cause mapping conflicts if mixed with data from other indices which have different or no ignore_above
parameter for the same field?
Grtz
Willem
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 5 years ago
- Comments:6 (6 by maintainers)
Top GitHub Comments
ignore_above
can be seen as a safety feature. It only prevents the keyword (exact match search + aggregations) indexing to take into account values that are longer than 1024. Or more precisely, it stops caring at 1024 chars.But I don’t think it changes anything performance or storage wise on fields where values are all reasonably sized (e.g. 20 to 100 chars).
I think all my questions in this issue got answered. Tx all. Closing up.