-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 431
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
Rename log.message to log.original #106
Conversation
log.message was confused with message. To bring it in line with elastic#102 the field log.message was renamed to log.original.
c306a6d
to
5547ed7
Compare
Love this wording instead of |
schemas/log.yml
Outdated
type: keyword | ||
phase: 1 | ||
example: "Sep 19 08:26:10 localhost My log" | ||
index: false | ||
# TODO: Best would be to disable ignore_above completely | ||
ignore_above: 32766 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm hesitant about the value of ignore_above
, however. ignore_above
does not truncate the value itself, it's a safety valve to avoid indexing values that are unexpectedly long in this field.
In other words, I don't think we would be likely to do exact match search or aggregations on an original log message that's this long. Log messages that are really short would be much more likely to be used this way, and as such I think 1024 would be enough.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agree with that. Removed the ignore_above
.
@@ -21,15 +21,16 @@ | |||
description: > | |||
Offset of the beginning of the log event. | |||
example: 12 | |||
- name: message | |||
- name: original | |||
type: keyword | |||
phase: 1 | |||
example: "Sep 19 08:26:10 localhost My log" | |||
index: false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@webmat As we have index: false
ignore_above should not play a role anyways?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Not familiar with index:false
, but I assume you're right, it would not have mattered. But actually, are you sure we want this to be index:false
? I guess so: aggregating on short log messages is kind of an edge case...
Do we go with the new PR merging policies of Beats for this? Or do you want me to merge it?
I don't expect this field to be used for aggregation at all. I would prefer to keep here the merging as we had, so please merge :-) |
log.message was confused with message. To bring it in line with #102 the field log.message was renamed to log.original.