-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Look at index naming for stores #148
Comments
My first thought is the indexes do not need to be hidden indexes, and we should change the naming convention to something like This has the benefit of making it obvious to the user these are UBI indexes since they are not hidden. |
I think that if we can talk ourselves into this, then it makes it easier then fixing the SQL tool! Do we envision more |
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. |
Here is a pull request to change the naming to |
Closing as OBE. |
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:We should look at these considerations (and others?) and determine if we should adjust UBI's index naming convention.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: