I want to simulate a parent child relation in elastic search and perform some analytics work over it. My use case is something like this
I have a shop owner like this
"_source": {
"shopId": 5,
"distributorId": 4,
"stateId": 1,
"partnerId": 2,
}
and now have child records (for each day) like this:
"_source": {
"shopId": 5,
"date" : 2013-11-13,
"transactions": 150,
"amount": 1980,
}
The parent is a record per store, while the child is the transactions each store does for
day. Now I want to do some complex query like
Find out total transaction for each day for the last 30 days where distributor is 5
POST /newdb/shopsDaily/_search
{
"query": {
"match_all": {}
},
"filter": {
"has_parent": {
"type": "shop",
"query": {
"match": {
"distributorId": "5"
}
}
}
},
"facets": {
"date": {
"histogram": {
"key_field": "date",
"value_field": "transactions",
"interval": 100
}
}
}
}
But the result I get do not take the filtering into account which I applied.
So I changed the query to this:
POST /newdb/shopDaily/_search
{
"query": {"filtered": {
"query": {"match_all": {}},
"filter": { "has_parent": {
"type": "shop",
"query": {"match": {
"distributorId": "13"
}}
}}
}},
"facets": {
"date": {
"histogram": {
"key_field": "date",
"value_field": "transactions",
"interval": 100
}
}
}
}
And then the final histogram facet took filtering into count.
So, when I browsed though I found out this is due to using filtered(which can only be used inside query clause and not outside like filter) rather than filter,
but it also mentioned that to have fast search you should use filter. Will searching as I did in second step (when I used filtered instead of filter) effect the performance of elastic search? If so, how can I make my facets honor filters and not effect the performance?
Thanks for you time
filters in Filtered query (filters in query clause) are cached, hence faster. These type of filters affect both search result and facet counts.
Filters outside the query clause are not considered during facet calculations. They are considered only for search results. Facet is calculated only on the query clause. If you want filtered facets then you need to set filters to each of the facet clauses.
Related
I'm trying to efficiently query data via Mango (as that seems to be the only option given my requirements Searching for sub-objects with a date range containing the queried date value), but I can't even get a very simple index/query pair to work: although I specify my index manually for the query, I'm told that my index "was not used because it does not contain a valid index for this query. No matching index found, create an index to optimize query time."
(I'm doing all of this via Fauxton on CouchDB v. 3.0.0)
Let's say my documents look like this:
{
"tenant": "TNNT_a",
"$doctype": "JobOpening",
// a bunch of other fields
}
All documents with a $doctype of "JobOpening" are guaranteed to have a tenant property. The searches I wish to perform will only ever be for documents with $doctype of "JobOpening" and a tenant selector will always be provided when querying.
Here's the test index I've configured:
{
"index": {
"fields": [
"tenant",
"$doctype"
],
"partial_filter_selector": {
"\\$doctype": {
"$eq": "JobOpening"
}
}
},
"ddoc": "job-openings-doctype-index",
"type": "json"
}
And here's the query
{
"selector": {
"tenant": "TNNT_a",
"\\$doctype": "JobOpening"
},
"use_index": "job-openings-doctype-index"
}
Why isn't the index being used for the query?
I've tried not using a partial index, and I think the $doctype escaping is done properly in the requisite places, but nothing seems to keep CouchDB from performing a full scan.
The index isn't being used because the $doctype field is not being recognized by the query planner as expected.
Changing the fields declaration from $doctype to \\$doctype in the design document solves the issue.
{
"index": {
"fields": [
"tenant",
"\\$doctype"
],
"partial_filter_selector": {
"\\$doctype": {
"$eq": "JobOpening"
}
}
},
"ddoc": "job-openings-doctype-index",
"type": "json"
}
After that small refactor, the query
{
"selector": {
"tenant": "TNNT_a",
"\\$doctype": "JobOpening"
},
"use_index": "job-openings-doctype-index"
}
Returns the expected result, and produces an "explain" which confirms the job-openings-doctype-index was queried:
{
"dbname": "stack",
"index": {
"ddoc": "_design/job-openings-doctype-index",
"name": "7f5c5cea5acd90f11fffca3e3355b6a03677ad53",
"type": "json",
"def": {
"fields": [
{
"tenant": "asc"
},
{
"\\$doctype": "asc"
}
],
"partial_filter_selector": {
"\\$doctype": {
"$eq": "JobOpening"
}
}
}
},
// etc etc etc
Whether this change is intuitive or not is unclear, however it is consistent - and perhaps reveals leading field names with a "special" character may not be desirable.
Regarding the indexing of the filtered field, as per the documentation regarding partial_filter_selector
Technically, we don’t need to include the filter on the "status" [e.g.
$doctype here] field in the query selector ‐ the partial index
ensures this is always true - but including it makes the intent of the
selector clearer and will make it easier to take advantage of future
improvements to query planning (e.g. automatic selection of partial
indexes).
Despite that, I would not choose to index a field whose value is constant.
I am trying to create a CouchDB Mango Query with an index with the hope that the query runs faster. At the moment I have the following Mango Query which returns what I am looking for but it's slow. Therefore, I assume, I need to create an index to make it faster. I need help figuring out how to create that index.
selector: {
categoryIds: {
$in: categoryIds,
},
},
sort: [{ publicationDate: 'desc' }],
You can assume that my documents are let say news articles from different categories. Therefore in each document I have a field that contains one or more categories that the news article belongs to. For that I have an array of categoryIds for each document. My query needs to be optimized for queries like "Give me all news that have categoryId1 in their array of categoryIds sorted by publicationDate". What I don't know how to do is 1. How to define an index 2. What that index should be 3. How to use that index in "use_index" field of the Mango Query. Any help is appreciated.
Update after "Alexis Côté" answer:
If I define the index like this:
{
"_id": "_design/0f11ca4ef1ea06de05b31e6bd8265916c1bbe821",
"_rev": "6-adce50034e870aa02dc7e1e075c78361",
"language": "query",
"views": {
"categoryIds-json-index": {
"map": {
"fields": {
"categoryIds": "asc"
},
"partial_filter_selector": {}
},
"reduce": "_count",
"options": {
"def": {
"fields": [
"categoryIds"
]
}
}
}
}
}
And run the Mango Query like this:
{
"selector": {
"categoryIds": {
"$in": [
"e0bd5f97ac35bdf6893351337d269230"
]
}
},
"use_index": "categoryIds-json-index"
}
It still does return the results but they are not sorted in the order I want by publicationDate. So I am not clear what you are suggesting the solution is.
You can create an index as documented here
In your case, you will need an index on the "categoryIds" field.
You can specify the index using "use_index": "_design/<name>"
Note:The query planner should automatically pick this index if it's compatible.
I am doing pagination of 15000 records using mango query in CouchDB, but as I skip the records in more numbers then the execution time is increasing.
Here is my query:
{
"selector": {
"name": {"$ne": "null"}
},
"fields": ["_id", "_rev", "name", "email" ],
"sort": [{"name": "asc" }],
"limit": 10,
"skip": '.$skip.'
}
Here skip documents are dynamic depends upon the pagination number and as soon as the skip number increases the query execution time also get increase.
CouchDB "Mango" queries that use the $ne (not equal) operator tend to suffer performance issues because of the way the indexing works. One solution is to create and index that *only contains documents where name does not equal null by using CouchDB's relative new partial index feature.
Partial indexes allow the database to be filtered at index time, so that the built index only contains documents that pass the filter test you specify. The index can then be used with a query at query time to further winnow the data set down.
An index is created by calling the /db/_index endpoint:
POST /db/_index HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 144
Host: localhost:5984
{
"index": {
"partial_filter_selector": {
"name": {
"$ne": "null"
}
},
"fields": ["_id", "_rev", "name", "email"]
},
"ddoc": "mypartialindex",
"type" : "json"
}
This creates an index where only documents whose name is not null are included. We can then specify this index at query time:
{
"selector": {
"name": {
"$ne": "null"
}
},
"use_index": "mypartialindex"
}
In the above query, my selector is choosing all records, but the index it is accessing is already filtered. You may add additional clauses to the selector here to further filter the data at query time.
Partial indexing is described in the CouchDB documentation here and in this blog post.
I have the web-form builder for science events. The event moderator creates registration form with arbitrary amount of boolean, integer, enum and text fields.
Created form is used for:
register a new member to event;
search through registered members.
What is the best search tool for second task (to search memebers of event)? Is ElasticSearch well for this task?
I wrote a post about how to index arbitrary data into Elasticsearch and then to search it by specific fields and values. All this, without blowing up your index mapping.
The post is here: http://smnh.me/indexing-and-searching-arbitrary-json-data-using-elasticsearch/
In short, you will need to do the following steps to get what you want:
Create a special index described in the post.
Flatten the data you want to index using the flattenData function:
https://gist.github.com/smnh/30f96028511e1440b7b02ea559858af4.
Create a document with the original and flattened data and index it into Elasticsearch:
{
"data": { ... },
"flatData": [ ... ]
}
Optional: use Elasticsearch aggregations to find which fields and types have been indexed.
Execute queries on the flatData object to find what you need.
Example
Basing on your original question, let's assume that the first event moderator created a form with following fields to register members for the science event:
name string
age long
sex long - 0 for male, 1 for female
In addition to this data, the related event probably has some sort of id, let's call it eventId. So the final document could look like this:
{
"eventId": "2T73ZT1R463DJNWE36IA8FEN",
"name": "Bob",
"age": 22,
"sex": 0
}
Now, before we index this document, we will flatten it using the flattenData function:
flattenData(document);
This will produce the following array:
[
{
"key": "eventId",
"type": "string",
"key_type": "eventId.string",
"value_string": "2T73ZT1R463DJNWE36IA8FEN"
},
{
"key": "name",
"type": "string",
"key_type": "name.string",
"value_string": "Bob"
},
{
"key": "age",
"type": "long",
"key_type": "age.long",
"value_long": 22
},
{
"key": "sex",
"type": "long",
"key_type": "sex.long",
"value_long": 0
}
]
Then we will wrap this data in a document as I've showed before and index it.
Then, the second event moderator, creates another form having a new field, field with same name and type, and also a field with same name but with different type:
name string
city string
sex string - "male" or "female"
This event moderator decided that instead of having 0 and 1 for male and female, his form will allow choosing between two strings - "male" and "female".
Let's try to flatten the data submitted by this form:
flattenData({
"eventId": "F1BU9GGK5IX3ZWOLGCE3I5ML",
"name": "Alice",
"city": "New York",
"sex": "female"
});
This will produce the following data:
[
{
"key": "eventId",
"type": "string",
"key_type": "eventId.string",
"value_string": "F1BU9GGK5IX3ZWOLGCE3I5ML"
},
{
"key": "name",
"type": "string",
"key_type": "name.string",
"value_string": "Alice"
},
{
"key": "city",
"type": "string",
"key_type": "city.string",
"value_string": "New York"
},
{
"key": "sex",
"type": "string",
"key_type": "sex.string",
"value_string": "female"
}
]
Then, after wrapping the flattened data in a document and indexing it into Elasticsearch we can execute complicated queries.
For example, to find members named "Bob" registered for the event with ID 2T73ZT1R463DJNWE36IA8FEN we can execute the following query:
{
"query": {
"bool": {
"must": [
{
"nested": {
"path": "flatData",
"query": {
"bool": {
"must": [
{"term": {"flatData.key": "eventId"}},
{"match": {"flatData.value_string.keyword": "2T73ZT1R463DJNWE36IA8FEN"}}
]
}
}
}
},
{
"nested": {
"path": "flatData",
"query": {
"bool": {
"must": [
{"term": {"flatData.key": "name"}},
{"match": {"flatData.value_string": "bob"}}
]
}
}
}
}
]
}
}
}
ElasticSearch automatically detects the field content in order to index it correctly, even if the mapping hasn't been defined previously. So, yes : ElasticSearch suits well these cases.
However, you may want to fine tune this behavior, or maybe the default mapping applied by ElasticSearch doesn't correspond to what you need : in this case, take a look at the default mapping or, for even further control, the dynamic templates feature.
If you let your end users decide the keys you store things in, you'll have an ever-growing mapping and cluster state, which is problematic.
This case and a suggested solution is covered in this article on common problems with Elasticsearch.
Essentially, you want to have everything that can possibly be user-defined as a value. Using nested documents, you can have a key-field and differently mapped value fields to achieve pretty much the same.
How do I search for all unique values of a given field with Elasticsearch?
I have such a kind of query like select full_name from authors, so I can display the list to the users on a form.
You could make a terms facet on your 'full_name' field. But in order to do that properly you need to make sure you're not tokenizing it while indexing, otherwise every entry in the facet will be a different term that is part of the field content. You most likely need to configure it as 'not_analyzed' in your mapping. If you are also searching on it and you still want to tokenize it you can just index it in two different ways using multi field.
You also need to take into account that depending on the number of unique terms that are part of the full_name field, this operation can be expensive and require quite some memory.
For Elasticsearch 1.0 and later, you can leverage terms aggregation to do this,
query DSL:
{
"aggs": {
"NAME": {
"terms": {
"field": "",
"size": 10
}
}
}
}
A real example:
{
"aggs": {
"full_name": {
"terms": {
"field": "authors",
"size": 0
}
}
}
}
Then you can get all unique values of authors field.
size=0 means not limit the number of terms(this requires es to be 1.1.0 or later).
Response:
{
...
"aggregations" : {
"full_name" : {
"buckets" : [
{
"key" : "Ken",
"doc_count" : 10
},
{
"key" : "Jim Gray",
"doc_count" : 10
},
]
}
}
}
see Elasticsearch terms aggregations.
Intuition:
In SQL parlance:
Select distinct full_name from authors;
is equivalent to
Select full_name from authors group by full_name;
So, we can use the grouping/aggregate syntax in ElasticSearch to find distinct entries.
Assume the following is the structure stored in elastic search :
[{
"author": "Brian Kernighan"
},
{
"author": "Charles Dickens"
}]
What did not work: Plain aggregation
{
"aggs": {
"full_name": {
"terms": {
"field": "author"
}
}
}
}
I got the following error:
{
"error": {
"root_cause": [
{
"reason": "Fielddata is disabled on text fields by default...",
"type": "illegal_argument_exception"
}
]
}
}
What worked like a charm: Appending .keyword with the field
{
"aggs": {
"full_name": {
"terms": {
"field": "author.keyword"
}
}
}
}
And the sample output could be:
{
"aggregations": {
"full_name": {
"buckets": [
{
"doc_count": 372,
"key": "Charles Dickens"
},
{
"doc_count": 283,
"key": "Brian Kernighan"
}
],
"doc_count": 1000
}
}
}
Bonus tip:
Let us assume the field in question is nested as follows:
[{
"authors": [{
"details": [{
"name": "Brian Kernighan"
}]
}]
},
{
"authors": [{
"details": [{
"name": "Charles Dickens"
}]
}]
}
]
Now the correct query becomes:
{
"aggregations": {
"full_name": {
"aggregations": {
"author_details": {
"terms": {
"field": "authors.details.name"
}
}
},
"nested": {
"path": "authors.details"
}
}
},
"size": 0
}
Working for Elasticsearch 5.2.2
curl -XGET http://localhost:9200/articles/_search?pretty -d '
{
"aggs" : {
"whatever" : {
"terms" : { "field" : "yourfield", "size":10000 }
}
},
"size" : 0
}'
The "size":10000 means get (at most) 10000 unique values. Without this, if you have more than 10 unique values, only 10 values are returned.
The "size":0 means that in result, "hits" will contain no documents. By default, 10 documents are returned, which we don't need.
Reference: bucket terms aggregation
Also note, according to this page, facets have been replaced by aggregations in Elasticsearch 1.0, which are a superset of facets.
The existing answers did not work for me in Elasticsearch 5.X, for the following reasons:
I needed to tokenize my input while indexing.
"size": 0 failed to parse because "[size] must be greater than 0."
"Fielddata is disabled on text fields by default." This means by default you cannot search on the full_name field. However, an unanalyzed keyword field can be used for aggregations.
Solution 1: use the Scroll API. It works by keeping a search context and making multiple requests, each time returning subsequent batches of results. If you are using Python, the elasticsearch module has the scan() helper function to handle scrolling for you and return all results.
Solution 2: use the Search After API. It is similar to Scroll, but provides a live cursor instead of keeping a search context. Thus it is more efficient for real-time requests.