Skip to content

Enable larger block sizes for binary doc values.#1083

Merged
martijnvg merged 5 commits intoelastic:masterfrom
martijnvg:use_time_series_doc_values_format_large_binary_block_size
Mar 11, 2026
Merged

Enable larger block sizes for binary doc values.#1083
martijnvg merged 5 commits intoelastic:masterfrom
martijnvg:use_time_series_doc_values_format_large_binary_block_size

Conversation

@martijnvg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@martijnvg martijnvg commented Mar 10, 2026

By setting to index.use_time_series_doc_values_format_large_binary_block_size to true in elastic/logs and elastic/security benchmarks. This was recently added via elastic/elasticsearch#143049.

By setting to `index.use_time_series_doc_values_format_large_binary_block_size` to `true`. This was recently added via elastic/elasticsearch#143049.
@martijnvg martijnvg requested a review from parkertimmins March 10, 2026 10:58
@martijnvg martijnvg requested a review from a team March 10, 2026 12:49
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@gareth-ellis gareth-ellis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM - just to ensure though that you're aware that your change will require the index_mode to be set first, is that what is wanted?

@martijnvg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

is that what is wanted?

Yes, that is intended.

Do you know why rally-tracks-it-servless fails? I see assertion failures, but I don't see a cause?

@gareth-ellis
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

The issue is that some of the templates we want to delete are in use by another index template. I will try and get a solution tomorrow

Cannot run task [delete-all-component-templates]: Request returned an error. Error type: api, Description: illegal_argument_exception ({'error': {'root_cause': [{'type': 'illegal_argument_exception', 'reason': 'component templates [.fleet_agent_id_verification-1] cannot be removed as they are still in use by 
index templates [metrics-fleet_server.agent_status, metrics-fleet_server.agent_versions, logs-fleet_server.output_health]'}], 
'type': 'illegal_argument_exception', 'reason': 'component templates [.fleet_agent_id_verification-1] cannot be removed as they are still in use by index templates [metrics-fleet_server.agent_status, metrics-fleet_server.agent_versions, logs-fleet_server.output_health]'}, 'status': 400}), HTTP Status: 400

@martijnvg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I see, so is it safe to merge this PR now or should I wait until this issue is resolved?

@gareth-ellis
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@elasticmachine update branch

@martijnvg martijnvg merged commit 9741b89 into elastic:master Mar 11, 2026
15 checks passed
@esbenchmachine esbenchmachine added the backport pending Awaiting backport to stable release branch label Mar 11, 2026
@esbenchmachine
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@martijnvg
A backport is pending for this PR.
Apply all the labels that correspond to Elasticsearch minor versions expected to work with this PR, but select only from the available ones.
If intended for future releases, apply label for next minor

When a vX.Y label is added, a new pull request will be automatically created, unless merge conflicts are detected or if the label supplied points to the next Elasticsearch minor version. If successful, a link to the newly opened backport PR will be provided in a comment.

In case of merge conflicts during backporting, create the backport PR manually following the steps from README:
Final steps to complete the backporting process:

  1. Ensure the correct version labels exist in this PR.
  2. Ensure each backport pull request is labeled with backport.
  3. Review and merge each backport pull request into the appropriate version branch.
  4. Remove backport pending label from this PR once all backport PRs are merged.

Thank you!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

backport pending Awaiting backport to stable release branch

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants