concepts.asciidoc

Conventions and Terminology

For clarity, it is important to establish the meaning behind certain words as, the same wording might convey different meanings to different readers depending on one’s familiarity with SQL versus {es}.

Note

This documentation while trying to be complete, does assume the reader has basic understanding of {es} and/or SQL. If that is not the case, please continue reading the documentation however take notes and pursue the topics that are unclear either through the main {es} documentation or through the plethora of SQL material available in the open (there are simply too many excellent resources here to enumerate).

As a general rule, {es-sql} as the name indicates provides a SQL interface to {es}. As such, it follows the SQL terminology and conventions first, whenever possible. However the backing engine itself is {es} for which {es-sql} was purposely created hence why features or concepts that are not available, or cannot be mapped correctly, in SQL appear in {es-sql}. Last but not least, {es-sql} tries to obey the principle of least surprise, though as all things in the world, everything is relative.

Mapping concepts across SQL and {es}

While SQL and {es} have different terms for the way the data is organized (and different semantics), essentially their purpose is the same.

So let’s start from the bottom; these roughly are:

SQL	{es}	Description
column	field	In both cases, at the lowest level, data is stored in in named entries, of a variety of data types, containing one value. SQL calls such an entry a column while {es} a field. Notice that in {es} a field can contain multiple values of the same type (esentially a list) while in SQL, a column can contain exactly one value of said type. {es-sql} will do its best to preserve the SQL semantic and, depending on the query, reject those that return fields with more than one value.
row	document	Columns and fields do not exist by themselves; they are part of a row or a document. The two have slightly different semantics: a row tends to be strict (and have more enforcements) while a document tends to be a bit more flexible or loose (while still having a structure).
table	index	The target against which queries, whether in SQL or {es} get executed against.
schema	implicit	In RDBMS, schema is mainly a namespace of tables and typically used as a security boundary. {es} does not provide an equivalent concept for it. However when security is enabled, {es} automatically applies the security enforcement so that a role sees only the data it is allowed to (in SQL jargon, its schema).
catalog or database	cluster instance	In SQL, catalog or database are used interchangeably and represent a set of schemas that is, a number of tables. In {es} the set of indices available are grouped in a cluster. The semantics also differ a bit; a database is essentially yet another namespace (which can have some implications on the way data is stored) while an {es} cluster is a runtime instance, or rather a set of at least one {es} instance (typically running distributed). In practice this means that while in SQL one can potentially have multiple catalogs inside an instance, in {es} one is restricted to only one.
cluster	cluster (federated)	Traditionally in SQL, cluster refers to a single RDMBS instance which contains a number of catalogs or databases (see above). The same word can be reused inside {es} as well however its semantic clarified a bit. While RDBMS tend to have only one running instance, on a single machine (not distributed), {es} goes the opposite way and by default, is distributed and multi-instance. Further more, an {es} cluster can be connected to other clusters in a federated fashion thus cluster means: single cluster:: Multiple {es} instances typically distributed across machines, running within the same namespace. multiple clusters:: Multiple clusters, each with its own namespace, connected to each other in a federated setup (see Cross cluster Search).

As one can see while the mapping between the concepts are not exactly one to one and the semantics somewhat different, there are more things in common than differences. In fact, thanks to SQL declarative nature, many concepts can move across {es} transparently and the terminology of the two likely to be used interchangeably through-out the rest of the material.