Support for Elasticsearch 6.3 "missing" in Composite Aggregation
See original GitHub issueNEST/Elasticsearch.Net version: 6.4.1
Elasticsearch version: 6.3.0
Description of the problem including expected versus actual behavior:
I am using ICompositeAggregationSource
where the field missing_bucket
was newly added (that’s compatible with Elasticsearch version 6.4.0). In 6.3.0 that field was called missing
.
Is there a way to force serialization that would serialize bool? MissingBucket { get; set; }
as missing
instead of missing_bucket
.
Thanks for your help.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 5 years ago
- Comments:6 (4 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Composite aggregation | Elasticsearch Guide [8.9]
A multi-bucket aggregation that creates composite buckets from different sources. Unlike the other multi-bucket aggregations, you can use the composite ...
Read more >Backwards compatibility and composite aggregation ...
I have an ElasticSearch cluster that is currently on version 6.3.2 and we are not yet ready to upgrade it (hopefully that comes...
Read more >Missing aggregation | Elasticsearch Guide [8.9]
A field data based single bucket aggregation, that creates a bucket of all documents in the current document set context that are missing...
Read more >Missing aggregation | Elasticsearch Guide [7.17]
Missing aggregation edit A field data based single bucket aggregation, that creates a bucket of all documents in the current document set context...
Read more >Composite Aggregation Usage | Elasticsearch .NET Clients ...
A multi-bucket aggregation that creates composite buckets from different sources. Unlike the other multi-bucket aggregation the composite aggregation can be ...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
Closing this; will be in the next release,
6.6.0
I’m OK with adding
missing
given the alternative is to drop down to the low level client as long as #1016 is also still an open feature request.