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

[Maps] Use composite aggregation instead of terms aggregation for join #27606

Closed
nreese opened this issue Dec 20, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

[Maps] Use composite aggregation instead of terms aggregation for join #27606

nreese opened this issue Dec 20, 2018 · 2 comments
Labels
[Deprecated-Use Team:Presentation]Team:Geo Former Team Label for Geo Team. Now use Team:Presentation enhancement New value added to drive a business result

Comments

@nreese
Copy link
Contributor

nreese commented Dec 20, 2018

Currently, joining a vector layer in the GIS app uses a terms aggregation. This should be updated to use a composite aggregation for better scaling and less cluster stress.

@lukasolson lukasolson added the [Deprecated-Use Team:Presentation]Team:Geo Former Team Label for Geo Team. Now use Team:Presentation label Jan 23, 2019
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Contributor

Pinging @elastic/kibana-gis

@thomasneirynck thomasneirynck added the enhancement New value added to drive a business result label Mar 9, 2021
@thomasneirynck thomasneirynck changed the title Use composite aggregation instead of terms aggregation for join [Maps] Use composite aggregation instead of terms aggregation for join Mar 9, 2021
@thomasneirynck
Copy link
Contributor

Let's close. This asks for a specific way of implementing a large data-fetch. We can re-open when we have specific requests to support choropleth-mapping beyond the 65k limit.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
[Deprecated-Use Team:Presentation]Team:Geo Former Team Label for Geo Team. Now use Team:Presentation enhancement New value added to drive a business result
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants