Look at index naming for stores

[jzonthemtn]

For UBI stores, the indexes use the naming convention .[store-name]_events and .[store-name]_queries. This convention was chosen to follow the naming convention for a hidden index. There are now a few considerations we should look at:

• Our indexes are not actually created as hidden indexes. We should determine if they can/should be.
• Per the OpenSearch log: "in the next major version, index names starting with a dot are reserved for hidden indices and system indices." If our indexes are not actually hidden, we should change the name to follow the convention.
• We recently discovered that some OpenSearch SQL statements do not execute as expected due to the index names starting with a dot.

We should look at these considerations (and others?) and determine if we should adjust UBI's index naming convention.

[jzonthemtn]

My first thought is the indexes do not need to be hidden indexes, and we should change the naming convention to something like ubi_[store-name]_queries and ubi_[store-name]_events.

This has the benefit of making it obvious to the user these are UBI indexes since they are not hidden.

[epugh]

I think that if we can talk ourselves into this, then it makes it easier then fixing the SQL tool! Do we envision more ubi_[store-name]_[something_else] at this point? Would having a bunch matter? what if we had hot and cold versions of the the _queries and _events, or did some sort of time based index naming, would that matter???

[jzonthemtn]

Right now, no, we don't have a need for other indexes. I don't think those other items matter, but it could be that we just don't have a use-case for others at this point.

I think it would be good to make a decision on this prior to a release for OpenSearch 2.13.0 to avoid having early users have to rename their UBI indexes at some point in the future.

[jzonthemtn]

Here is a pull request to change the naming to ubi_[store-name]_events and ubi_[store-name]_queries.

[jzonthemtn]

Closing as OBE.