Skip to content
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

extended_bounds does not play nicely with .kibana index #14735

Closed
colings86 opened this issue Nov 13, 2015 · 0 comments · Fixed by #14736 or #14742
Closed

extended_bounds does not play nicely with .kibana index #14735

colings86 opened this issue Nov 13, 2015 · 0 comments · Fixed by #14736 or #14742
Assignees

Comments

@colings86
Copy link
Contributor

If you try to use extended_bounds a request which contains the .kibana index the extended bounds are ignored. See the following sense script to reproduce (must be run on a cluster with a .kibana index to reproduce the bug):

POST index-1/doc/1
{
  "@timestamp": "2015-01-01"
}
POST index-2/doc/1
{
  "@timestamp": "2013-01-01"
}
POST index-3/doc/1
{
  "@timestamp": "2011-01-01"
}
POST index-4/doc/1
{
  "@timestamp": "2009-01-01"
}

# Correctly returns buckets from 1970 to 2015
GET /index-*/_search
{
    "aggs": {
        "series": {
            "date_histogram": {
                "field": "@timestamp",
                "interval": "1y",
                "extended_bounds": {
                    "min": 0,
                    "max": 1447407264268
                },
                "min_doc_count": 0
            }
        }
    },
    "size": 0
}

# Only return buckets between 2009 and 2015 (extended_bounds is ignored)
GET /index-*,.kibana/_search
{
    "aggs": {
        "series": {
            "date_histogram": {
                "field": "@timestamp",
                "interval": "1y",
                "extended_bounds": {
                    "min": 0,
                    "max": 1447407264268
                },
                "min_doc_count": 0
            }
        }
    },
    "size": 0
}
@colings86 colings86 self-assigned this Nov 13, 2015
colings86 added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 13, 2015
…ting an unmapped aggregator

This fixes an issue where if the field for the aggregation was unmapped the extended bounds would get dropped and the resulting buckets would not cover the extended bounds requested.

Closes #14735
colings86 added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 13, 2015
…ting an unmapped aggregator

This fixes an issue where if the field for the aggregation was unmapped the extended bounds would get dropped and the resulting buckets would not cover the extended bounds requested.

Closes #14735
colings86 added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 13, 2015
…ting an unmapped aggregator

This fixes an issue where if the field for the aggregation was unmapped the extended bounds would get dropped and the resulting buckets would not cover the extended bounds requested.

Closes #14735
colings86 added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 13, 2015
…ting an unmapped aggregator

This fixes an issue where if the field for the aggregation was unmapped the extended bounds would get dropped and the resulting buckets would not cover the extended bounds requested.

Closes #14735
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
1 participant