Filtering Field with multiple values
How would I approach the following problem:
I want to filter on a field which contains multiple values(eg. ["value1", "value2", "value3"]).
The filter would also contain multiple values (eg. ["value1", "value2"].
I want to get back only the items which have the same field value as filter, eg. field is ["value1", "value2"] and the filter is also ["value1", "value2"]
Any help would be greatly appreciated
elasticsearch
asked Nov 20 '18 at 14:06
TotalTardTotalTard
253
add a comment |
How would I approach the following problem:
I want to filter on a field which contains multiple values(eg. ["value1", "value2", "value3"]).
The filter would also contain multiple values (eg. ["value1", "value2"].
I want to get back only the items which have the same field value as filter, eg. field is ["value1", "value2"] and the filter is also ["value1", "value2"]
Any help would be greatly appreciated
elasticsearch
asked Nov 20 '18 at 14:06
TotalTardTotalTard
253
This answer might help (even though it is in groovy, which was before painless): stackoverflow.com/questions/31156108/…
– Val
Nov 20 '18 at 14:14
add a comment |
How would I approach the following problem:
I want to filter on a field which contains multiple values(eg. ["value1", "value2", "value3"]).
The filter would also contain multiple values (eg. ["value1", "value2"].
I want to get back only the items which have the same field value as filter, eg. field is ["value1", "value2"] and the filter is also ["value1", "value2"]
Any help would be greatly appreciated
elasticsearch
asked Nov 20 '18 at 14:06
TotalTardTotalTard
253
How would I approach the following problem:
I want to filter on a field which contains multiple values(eg. ["value1", "value2", "value3"]).
The filter would also contain multiple values (eg. ["value1", "value2"].
I want to get back only the items which have the same field value as filter, eg. field is ["value1", "value2"] and the filter is also ["value1", "value2"]
Any help would be greatly appreciated
elasticsearch
elasticsearch
asked Nov 20 '18 at 14:06
TotalTardTotalTard
253
asked Nov 20 '18 at 14:06
TotalTardTotalTard
253
asked Nov 20 '18 at 14:06
TotalTardTotalTard
253
asked Nov 20 '18 at 14:06
TotalTardTotalTard
253
asked Nov 20 '18 at 14:06
TotalTardTotalTard
253
253
This answer might help (even though it is in groovy, which was before painless): stackoverflow.com/questions/31156108/…
– Val
Nov 20 '18 at 14:14
add a comment |
This answer might help (even though it is in groovy, which was before painless): stackoverflow.com/questions/31156108/…
– Val
Nov 20 '18 at 14:14
This answer might help (even though it is in groovy, which was before painless): stackoverflow.com/questions/31156108/…
– Val
Nov 20 '18 at 14:14
This answer might help (even though it is in groovy, which was before painless): stackoverflow.com/questions/31156108/…
– Val
Nov 20 '18 at 14:14
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I think the somewhat-recently added (v6.1) terms_set query (which Val references on the question he linked in his comment) is what you want.
terms_set, unlike a regular terms, has a parameter to specify a minimum number of matches that must exist between the search terms and the terms contained in the field.
Given:
PUT my_index/_doc/1
{
"values": ["living", "in a van", "down by the river"],
}
PUT my_index/_doc/2
{
"values": ["living", "in a house", "down by the river"],
}
A terms query for ["living", "in a van", "down by the river"] will return you both docs: no good. A terms_set configured to require all three matching terms (the script params.num_terms evaluates to 3) can give you just the matching one:
GET my_index/_search
{
"query": {
"terms_set": {
"values": {
"terms": ["living", "in a van", "down by the river"],
"minimum_should_match_script": {
"source": "params.num_terms"
}
}
}
}
}
NOTE: While I used minimum_should_match_script in the above example, it isn't a very efficient pattern. The alternative minimum_should_match_field is the better approach, but using it in the example would have meant a couple of more PUTs to add the necessary field to the documents, so I went with brevity.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:10
mike bmike b
1563
This helped a lot, only problem is we are currently below version 6.1 so the implementation will have to wait until we upgrade. Thank you.
– TotalTard
Nov 22 '18 at 12:22
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53394802%2ffiltering-field-with-multiple-values%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I think the somewhat-recently added (v6.1) terms_set query (which Val references on the question he linked in his comment) is what you want.
terms_set, unlike a regular terms, has a parameter to specify a minimum number of matches that must exist between the search terms and the terms contained in the field.
Given:
PUT my_index/_doc/1
{
"values": ["living", "in a van", "down by the river"],
}
PUT my_index/_doc/2
{
"values": ["living", "in a house", "down by the river"],
}
A terms query for ["living", "in a van", "down by the river"] will return you both docs: no good. A terms_set configured to require all three matching terms (the script params.num_terms evaluates to 3) can give you just the matching one:
GET my_index/_search
{
"query": {
"terms_set": {
"values": {
"terms": ["living", "in a van", "down by the river"],
"minimum_should_match_script": {
"source": "params.num_terms"
}
}
}
}
}
NOTE: While I used minimum_should_match_script in the above example, it isn't a very efficient pattern. The alternative minimum_should_match_field is the better approach, but using it in the example would have meant a couple of more PUTs to add the necessary field to the documents, so I went with brevity.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:10
mike bmike b
1563
This helped a lot, only problem is we are currently below version 6.1 so the implementation will have to wait until we upgrade. Thank you.
– TotalTard
Nov 22 '18 at 12:22
add a comment |
I think the somewhat-recently added (v6.1) terms_set query (which Val references on the question he linked in his comment) is what you want.
terms_set, unlike a regular terms, has a parameter to specify a minimum number of matches that must exist between the search terms and the terms contained in the field.
Given:
PUT my_index/_doc/1
{
"values": ["living", "in a van", "down by the river"],
}
PUT my_index/_doc/2
{
"values": ["living", "in a house", "down by the river"],
}
A terms query for ["living", "in a van", "down by the river"] will return you both docs: no good. A terms_set configured to require all three matching terms (the script params.num_terms evaluates to 3) can give you just the matching one:
GET my_index/_search
{
"query": {
"terms_set": {
"values": {
"terms": ["living", "in a van", "down by the river"],
"minimum_should_match_script": {
"source": "params.num_terms"
}
}
}
}
}
NOTE: While I used minimum_should_match_script in the above example, it isn't a very efficient pattern. The alternative minimum_should_match_field is the better approach, but using it in the example would have meant a couple of more PUTs to add the necessary field to the documents, so I went with brevity.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:10
mike bmike b
1563
This helped a lot, only problem is we are currently below version 6.1 so the implementation will have to wait until we upgrade. Thank you.
– TotalTard
Nov 22 '18 at 12:22
add a comment |
I think the somewhat-recently added (v6.1) terms_set query (which Val references on the question he linked in his comment) is what you want.
terms_set, unlike a regular terms, has a parameter to specify a minimum number of matches that must exist between the search terms and the terms contained in the field.
Given:
PUT my_index/_doc/1
{
"values": ["living", "in a van", "down by the river"],
}
PUT my_index/_doc/2
{
"values": ["living", "in a house", "down by the river"],
}
A terms query for ["living", "in a van", "down by the river"] will return you both docs: no good. A terms_set configured to require all three matching terms (the script params.num_terms evaluates to 3) can give you just the matching one:
GET my_index/_search
{
"query": {
"terms_set": {
"values": {
"terms": ["living", "in a van", "down by the river"],
"minimum_should_match_script": {
"source": "params.num_terms"
}
}
}
}
}
NOTE: While I used minimum_should_match_script in the above example, it isn't a very efficient pattern. The alternative minimum_should_match_field is the better approach, but using it in the example would have meant a couple of more PUTs to add the necessary field to the documents, so I went with brevity.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:10
mike bmike b
1563
I think the somewhat-recently added (v6.1) terms_set query (which Val references on the question he linked in his comment) is what you want.
terms_set, unlike a regular terms, has a parameter to specify a minimum number of matches that must exist between the search terms and the terms contained in the field.
Given:
PUT my_index/_doc/1
{
"values": ["living", "in a van", "down by the river"],
}
PUT my_index/_doc/2
{
"values": ["living", "in a house", "down by the river"],
}
A terms query for ["living", "in a van", "down by the river"] will return you both docs: no good. A terms_set configured to require all three matching terms (the script params.num_terms evaluates to 3) can give you just the matching one:
GET my_index/_search
{
"query": {
"terms_set": {
"values": {
"terms": ["living", "in a van", "down by the river"],
"minimum_should_match_script": {
"source": "params.num_terms"
}
}
}
}
}
NOTE: While I used minimum_should_match_script in the above example, it isn't a very efficient pattern. The alternative minimum_should_match_field is the better approach, but using it in the example would have meant a couple of more PUTs to add the necessary field to the documents, so I went with brevity.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:10
mike bmike b
1563
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:10
mike bmike b
1563
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:10
mike bmike b
1563
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:10
mike bmike b
1563
1563
This helped a lot, only problem is we are currently below version 6.1 so the implementation will have to wait until we upgrade. Thank you.
– TotalTard
Nov 22 '18 at 12:22
add a comment |
This helped a lot, only problem is we are currently below version 6.1 so the implementation will have to wait until we upgrade. Thank you.
– TotalTard
Nov 22 '18 at 12:22
This helped a lot, only problem is we are currently below version 6.1 so the implementation will have to wait until we upgrade. Thank you.
– TotalTard
Nov 22 '18 at 12:22
This helped a lot, only problem is we are currently below version 6.1 so the implementation will have to wait until we upgrade. Thank you.
– TotalTard
Nov 22 '18 at 12:22
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53394802%2ffiltering-field-with-multiple-values%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
This answer might help (even though it is in groovy, which was before painless): stackoverflow.com/questions/31156108/…
– Val
Nov 20 '18 at 14:14