Term aggregation on filtered array items
I want to aggregate on term that are inside an array but I am only interested in some of the array item. I made up a simplified example. Basically I want to aggregate on Type.string if Type.field is valid.
POST so/question
"Type": [
[
"field": "invalid",
"string": "A"
],
[
"field": "valid",
"string": "B"
]
]
GET /so/_search
"size": 0,
"aggs":
"xxx":
"filter":
"term":
"Type.field": "valid"
,
"aggs":
"yyy":
"terms":
"field": "Type.string.keyword",
"min_doc_count": 0
The agregation result has 2 keys whereas I only need the "B" key.
"aggregations":
"xxx":
"doc_count": 1,
"yyy":
"doc_count_error_upper_bound": 0,
"sum_other_doc_count": 0,
"buckets": [
"key": "A",
"doc_count": 1
,
"key": "B",
"doc_count": 1
]
Is there a way to aggregate on array items which match the filter?
Unfortunately I can't change the data format which would be the obvious solution.
elasticsearch
asked Nov 12 '18 at 18:12
SydneySydney
7,9661466114
add a comment |
I want to aggregate on term that are inside an array but I am only interested in some of the array item. I made up a simplified example. Basically I want to aggregate on Type.string if Type.field is valid.
POST so/question
"Type": [
[
"field": "invalid",
"string": "A"
],
[
"field": "valid",
"string": "B"
]
]
GET /so/_search
"size": 0,
"aggs":
"xxx":
"filter":
"term":
"Type.field": "valid"
,
"aggs":
"yyy":
"terms":
"field": "Type.string.keyword",
"min_doc_count": 0
The agregation result has 2 keys whereas I only need the "B" key.
"aggregations":
"xxx":
"doc_count": 1,
"yyy":
"doc_count_error_upper_bound": 0,
"sum_other_doc_count": 0,
"buckets": [
"key": "A",
"doc_count": 1
,
"key": "B",
"doc_count": 1
]
Is there a way to aggregate on array items which match the filter?
Unfortunately I can't change the data format which would be the obvious solution.
elasticsearch
asked Nov 12 '18 at 18:12
SydneySydney
7,9661466114
add a comment |
I want to aggregate on term that are inside an array but I am only interested in some of the array item. I made up a simplified example. Basically I want to aggregate on Type.string if Type.field is valid.
POST so/question
"Type": [
[
"field": "invalid",
"string": "A"
],
[
"field": "valid",
"string": "B"
]
]
GET /so/_search
"size": 0,
"aggs":
"xxx":
"filter":
"term":
"Type.field": "valid"
,
"aggs":
"yyy":
"terms":
"field": "Type.string.keyword",
"min_doc_count": 0
The agregation result has 2 keys whereas I only need the "B" key.
"aggregations":
"xxx":
"doc_count": 1,
"yyy":
"doc_count_error_upper_bound": 0,
"sum_other_doc_count": 0,
"buckets": [
"key": "A",
"doc_count": 1
,
"key": "B",
"doc_count": 1
]
Is there a way to aggregate on array items which match the filter?
Unfortunately I can't change the data format which would be the obvious solution.
elasticsearch
asked Nov 12 '18 at 18:12
SydneySydney
7,9661466114
I want to aggregate on term that are inside an array but I am only interested in some of the array item. I made up a simplified example. Basically I want to aggregate on Type.string if Type.field is valid.
POST so/question
"Type": [
[
"field": "invalid",
"string": "A"
],
[
"field": "valid",
"string": "B"
]
]
GET /so/_search
"size": 0,
"aggs":
"xxx":
"filter":
"term":
"Type.field": "valid"
,
"aggs":
"yyy":
"terms":
"field": "Type.string.keyword",
"min_doc_count": 0
The agregation result has 2 keys whereas I only need the "B" key.
"aggregations":
"xxx":
"doc_count": 1,
"yyy":
"doc_count_error_upper_bound": 0,
"sum_other_doc_count": 0,
"buckets": [
"key": "A",
"doc_count": 1
,
"key": "B",
"doc_count": 1
]
Is there a way to aggregate on array items which match the filter?
Unfortunately I can't change the data format which would be the obvious solution.
elasticsearch
elasticsearch
asked Nov 12 '18 at 18:12
SydneySydney
7,9661466114
asked Nov 12 '18 at 18:12
SydneySydney
7,9661466114
asked Nov 12 '18 at 18:12
SydneySydney
7,9661466114
asked Nov 12 '18 at 18:12
SydneySydney
7,9661466114
asked Nov 12 '18 at 18:12
SydneySydney
7,9661466114
7,9661466114
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Unless, the documents are of Nested Type, I don't think its possible with simple array types because of the way Elasticsearch Flattens the objects and stores them.
Querying anything on these flattened objects will give you completely unexpected results.
Now I've come up with the below query, making use of Terms Aggregation using Script works perfectly fine for the document you've mentioned in the question
POST so/_search
"size": 0,
"aggs":
"xxx":
"filter":
"term":
"Type.field": "valid"
,
"aggs":
"yyy":
"terms":
"script":
"source": """
int size = doc['Type.string.keyword'].values.length;
for(int i=0; i<size; i++)
String myString = doc['Type.string.keyword'][i];
if(myString.equals("B") && doc['Type.field.keyword'][i].equals("valid"))
return myString;
""",
"lang": "painless"
However if you ingest the below document, you see that the aggregation response would be completely different. That is because, array types doesn't store each Type.field value and Type.string value in an ith location in their respective arrays.
POST so/question/2
"Type": [
[
"field": "valid",
"string": "A"
],
[
"field": "invalid",
"string": "B"
]
]
Notice even the below simple Bool query wouldn't work as expected and ends up displaying both the documents.
POST so/_search
"query":
"bool":
"must": [
"match": "Type.field.keyword": "valid" ,
"match": "Type.string.keyword": "B"
]
Hope it helps!
answered Nov 12 '18 at 20:58
KamalKamal
1,6531820
1
I ended up using nested type which is the best option. Thanks for pointing out that feature.
– Sydney
Nov 13 '18 at 18:22
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%2f53267836%2fterm-aggregation-on-filtered-array-items%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
Unless, the documents are of Nested Type, I don't think its possible with simple array types because of the way Elasticsearch Flattens the objects and stores them.
Querying anything on these flattened objects will give you completely unexpected results.
Now I've come up with the below query, making use of Terms Aggregation using Script works perfectly fine for the document you've mentioned in the question
POST so/_search
"size": 0,
"aggs":
"xxx":
"filter":
"term":
"Type.field": "valid"
,
"aggs":
"yyy":
"terms":
"script":
"source": """
int size = doc['Type.string.keyword'].values.length;
for(int i=0; i<size; i++)
String myString = doc['Type.string.keyword'][i];
if(myString.equals("B") && doc['Type.field.keyword'][i].equals("valid"))
return myString;
""",
"lang": "painless"
However if you ingest the below document, you see that the aggregation response would be completely different. That is because, array types doesn't store each Type.field value and Type.string value in an ith location in their respective arrays.
POST so/question/2
"Type": [
[
"field": "valid",
"string": "A"
],
[
"field": "invalid",
"string": "B"
]
]
Notice even the below simple Bool query wouldn't work as expected and ends up displaying both the documents.
POST so/_search
"query":
"bool":
"must": [
"match": "Type.field.keyword": "valid" ,
"match": "Type.string.keyword": "B"
]
Hope it helps!
answered Nov 12 '18 at 20:58
KamalKamal
1,6531820
1
I ended up using nested type which is the best option. Thanks for pointing out that feature.
– Sydney
Nov 13 '18 at 18:22
add a comment |
Unless, the documents are of Nested Type, I don't think its possible with simple array types because of the way Elasticsearch Flattens the objects and stores them.
Querying anything on these flattened objects will give you completely unexpected results.
Now I've come up with the below query, making use of Terms Aggregation using Script works perfectly fine for the document you've mentioned in the question
POST so/_search
"size": 0,
"aggs":
"xxx":
"filter":
"term":
"Type.field": "valid"
,
"aggs":
"yyy":
"terms":
"script":
"source": """
int size = doc['Type.string.keyword'].values.length;
for(int i=0; i<size; i++)
String myString = doc['Type.string.keyword'][i];
if(myString.equals("B") && doc['Type.field.keyword'][i].equals("valid"))
return myString;
""",
"lang": "painless"
However if you ingest the below document, you see that the aggregation response would be completely different. That is because, array types doesn't store each Type.field value and Type.string value in an ith location in their respective arrays.
POST so/question/2
"Type": [
[
"field": "valid",
"string": "A"
],
[
"field": "invalid",
"string": "B"
]
]
Notice even the below simple Bool query wouldn't work as expected and ends up displaying both the documents.
POST so/_search
"query":
"bool":
"must": [
"match": "Type.field.keyword": "valid" ,
"match": "Type.string.keyword": "B"
]
Hope it helps!
answered Nov 12 '18 at 20:58
KamalKamal
1,6531820
1
I ended up using nested type which is the best option. Thanks for pointing out that feature.
– Sydney
Nov 13 '18 at 18:22
add a comment |
Unless, the documents are of Nested Type, I don't think its possible with simple array types because of the way Elasticsearch Flattens the objects and stores them.
Querying anything on these flattened objects will give you completely unexpected results.
Now I've come up with the below query, making use of Terms Aggregation using Script works perfectly fine for the document you've mentioned in the question
POST so/_search
"size": 0,
"aggs":
"xxx":
"filter":
"term":
"Type.field": "valid"
,
"aggs":
"yyy":
"terms":
"script":
"source": """
int size = doc['Type.string.keyword'].values.length;
for(int i=0; i<size; i++)
String myString = doc['Type.string.keyword'][i];
if(myString.equals("B") && doc['Type.field.keyword'][i].equals("valid"))
return myString;
""",
"lang": "painless"
However if you ingest the below document, you see that the aggregation response would be completely different. That is because, array types doesn't store each Type.field value and Type.string value in an ith location in their respective arrays.
POST so/question/2
"Type": [
[
"field": "valid",
"string": "A"
],
[
"field": "invalid",
"string": "B"
]
]
Notice even the below simple Bool query wouldn't work as expected and ends up displaying both the documents.
POST so/_search
"query":
"bool":
"must": [
"match": "Type.field.keyword": "valid" ,
"match": "Type.string.keyword": "B"
]
Hope it helps!
answered Nov 12 '18 at 20:58
KamalKamal
1,6531820
Unless, the documents are of Nested Type, I don't think its possible with simple array types because of the way Elasticsearch Flattens the objects and stores them.
Querying anything on these flattened objects will give you completely unexpected results.
Now I've come up with the below query, making use of Terms Aggregation using Script works perfectly fine for the document you've mentioned in the question
POST so/_search
"size": 0,
"aggs":
"xxx":
"filter":
"term":
"Type.field": "valid"
,
"aggs":
"yyy":
"terms":
"script":
"source": """
int size = doc['Type.string.keyword'].values.length;
for(int i=0; i<size; i++)
String myString = doc['Type.string.keyword'][i];
if(myString.equals("B") && doc['Type.field.keyword'][i].equals("valid"))
return myString;
""",
"lang": "painless"
However if you ingest the below document, you see that the aggregation response would be completely different. That is because, array types doesn't store each Type.field value and Type.string value in an ith location in their respective arrays.
POST so/question/2
"Type": [
[
"field": "valid",
"string": "A"
],
[
"field": "invalid",
"string": "B"
]
]
Notice even the below simple Bool query wouldn't work as expected and ends up displaying both the documents.
POST so/_search
"query":
"bool":
"must": [
"match": "Type.field.keyword": "valid" ,
"match": "Type.string.keyword": "B"
]
Hope it helps!
answered Nov 12 '18 at 20:58
KamalKamal
1,6531820
answered Nov 12 '18 at 20:58
KamalKamal
1,6531820
answered Nov 12 '18 at 20:58
KamalKamal
1,6531820
answered Nov 12 '18 at 20:58
KamalKamal
1,6531820
1,6531820
1
I ended up using nested type which is the best option. Thanks for pointing out that feature.
– Sydney
Nov 13 '18 at 18:22
add a comment |
1
I ended up using nested type which is the best option. Thanks for pointing out that feature.
– Sydney
Nov 13 '18 at 18:22
1
1
I ended up using nested type which is the best option. Thanks for pointing out that feature.
– Sydney
Nov 13 '18 at 18:22
I ended up using nested type which is the best option. Thanks for pointing out that feature.
– Sydney
Nov 13 '18 at 18:22
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.
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%2f53267836%2fterm-aggregation-on-filtered-array-items%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
