Is a field named "properties" valid?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Is a field named "properties" valid?

Nick Hoffman
When creating a mapping, setting a key to "properties" enables you to nest fields. Does that mean that you can't name a field "properties"?

I ask because my documents have a field named properties. For example, check out lines 32-34 here:
https://gist.github.com/6e935e022c759fbc8d61#file_2_mapping.js

Is that valid?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is a field named "properties" valid?

kimchy
Administrator
It should be ok, have you seen problems with it? One way to verify is to use get mapping and check that the mappings you placed are the correct ones.

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Nick Hoffman <[hidden email]> wrote:
When creating a mapping, setting a key to "properties" enables you to nest fields. Does that mean that you can't name a field "properties"?

I ask because my documents have a field named properties. For example, check out lines 32-34 here:

Is that valid?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is a field named "properties" valid?

Nick Hoffman
I grabbed the mapping via GET (https://gist.github.com/6e935e022c759fbc8d61#file_2_mapping.js), and the structure looks correct to me. I just wasn't sure if "properties" is a reserved word.