Mohit Godwani

> Does OpenSearch allow removal of mapping types and defining mapping types within an index? Do you mean custom types here which were present in earlier versions on elasticsearch? If...

@aswath86 Are you planning to continue on this change?

@Gaganjuneja Are you planning to continue on this PR and targeting any upcoming release? This has been stalled now, and if this is not planned to be continued, lets close...

Thanks @sarthakaggarwal97 for sharing the storage numbers. What is the performance impact wrt throughput due to the zstd level3 and zstd no dict level3 in the benchmarks you executed recently?...

I agree that this is a miss for default. I believe the indexing would have still gone through for these use cases. * What is the use case to update...

Reopening this since I've not seen any traction. I'm still trying to understand what is the actual issue here with the new format. @reta @StewartWBrown1 I'm still not sure of...

@reta I've gone through the issue and comments, but have not been able to figure out what exactly broke with the change. The new default format is compatible with the...

> when the existing mappings for the index were created with the "old" default but than when the "new" default kicks in In case of default format, mapping format is...

> Since the default could change (which we sadly did), why we should not even allow setting an explicit format? @reta In general, we don't allow mappings for a field...

@StewartWBrown1 Yes, the change can be considered breaking in line with the semantic versioning guidelines followed for OpenSearch project and I'm ok keeping it false. Could you help me understand...