Disallow index types updates to bbq_disk, revert (#131760)#139061
Merged
elasticsearchmachine merged 5 commits intoelastic:mainfrom Dec 4, 2025
Merged
Conversation
benwtrent
added
>bug
auto-backport
elasticsearchmachine
added
v9.2.3
Team:Search Relevance
Collaborator
|
Pinging @elastic/es-search-relevance (Team:Search Relevance) |
Collaborator
|
Hi @benwtrent, I've created a changelog YAML for you. |
carlosdelest
approved these changes
Dec 4, 2025
Member
carlosdelest
left a comment
carlosdelest
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"All these commits, will be lost... like PRs in rain"
john-wagster
approved these changes
Dec 4, 2025
Contributor
john-wagster
left a comment
john-wagster
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this looks like just a reversion. Do we want to support flat -> bbq_disk and bbq_flat -> bbq_disk like in a subsequent PR? lgtm.
benwtrent
added
the
auto-merge-without-approval
Member
Author
Possibly, but that would come later |
…eable-type-to-diskbbq
…:benwtrent/elasticsearch into bugfix/remove-updateable-type-to-diskbbq
Collaborator
💔 Backport failed
You can use sqren/backport to manually backport by running |
Member
Author
💚 All backports created successfully
Questions ?Please refer to the Backport tool documentation |
benwtrent
added a commit
to benwtrent/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 4, 2025
…astic#139061) We planned and worked on `131760` from before our changes to the query execution path for bbq_disk indices. But, with all the changes, its less amenable to have hnsw & bbq_disk indices within the same shard. Maybe this is something we can do again in the future (I am frankly not sure), but allowing it naively just breaks too many expectations. (cherry picked from commit 604ca48)
elasticsearchmachine
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 4, 2025
…139086) We planned and worked on `131760` from before our changes to the query execution path for bbq_disk indices. But, with all the changes, its less amenable to have hnsw & bbq_disk indices within the same shard. Maybe this is something we can do again in the future (I am frankly not sure), but allowing it naively just breaks too many expectations. (cherry picked from commit 604ca48)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We planned and worked on
131760from before our changes to the query execution path for bbq_disk indices.But, with all the changes, its less amenable to have hnsw & bbq_disk indices within the same shard.
Maybe this is something we can do again in the future (I am frankly not sure), but allowing it naively just breaks too many expectations.