[ESQL] Improve skip_unavailable description in CCS doc
#1919
Conversation
|
🔍 Preview links for changed docs: 🔔 The preview site may take up to 3 minutes to finish building. These links will become live once it completes. |
| * The remote cluster does not have the requested index. | ||
| * An error happened while processing the query on the remote cluster. | ||
|
|
||
| The `partial` status will be used if the remote query was partially successful and some data was returned. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| The `partial` status will be used if the remote query was partially successful and some data was returned. |
I suggested explaining skipped and partial in the opening section, so can remove this if accept that :)
| This however does not apply to the situation when the remote cluster is missing an index and this is the only index in the query, | ||
| or all the indices in the query are missing. For example, the following queries will fail: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This first sentence is a little hard to read, I wonder if we can boil it town to a simpler message:
Queries will still fail when skip_unavailable: true, if none of the specified indices exist.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might be a candidate for an admonition
| FROM cluster_one:missing-index | LIMIT 10 | ||
| FROM cluster_one:missing-index* | LIMIT 10 | ||
| FROM cluster_one:missing-index*,cluster_two:missing-index | LIMIT 10 | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| FROM cluster_one:missing-index | LIMIT 10 | |
| FROM cluster_one:missing-index* | LIMIT 10 | |
| FROM cluster_one:missing-index*,cluster_two:missing-index | LIMIT 10 | |
| ``` | |
| FROM cluster_one:missing-index <1> | |
| FROM cluster_one:missing-index* <2> | |
| FROM cluster_one:missing-index*,cluster_two:missing-index <3> | |
| ``` | |
| 1. Single missing index on one cluster | |
| 2. Index pattern that matches nothing | |
| 3. All indices and index patterns missing across every cluster | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
annotating the query might nice, clean way to explain it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the previous text already explains it, do we really need to supply that much detail? It's just different examples of how to write missing indices, after all.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it hurts to be super clear, and personally I really like annotated examples —specially for non-experts.
But I leave this totally up to your discretion! :)
leemthompo
changed the title
skip_unavailable description in CCS doc
Co-authored-by: Liam Thompson <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Liam Thompson <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for iterating @smalyshev, much appreciated 👍
I'm approving to unblock, I see nothing but optional minor refinements left now as I log off for today.
Improve the description to match 9.1 GA semantics