# Are certain fields excluded from being part of "\_all" grouping? **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [March 25, 2014, 3:53pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/are-certain-fields-excluded-from-being-part-of--all-grouping/16590 "2014-03-25T15:53:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pulkitsinghal](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/pulkitsinghal/32/802_2.png) [@pulkitsinghal](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/pulkitsinghal)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 3:53pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/are-certain-fields-excluded-from-being-part-of--all-grouping/16590/1 "2014-03-25T15:53:10Z")
I ran the following two queries on v0.90.5: POST /my\_index/product/\_search > {"query":{"bool":{"must":[{"query\_string":{"default\_field":"_\_all_ > ","query":"cinna"}}]}}} > POST /my\_index/product/\_search > {"query":{"bool":{"must":[{"query\_string":{"default\_field":"_name_ > ","query":"cinna"}}]}}} The query with the "\_all" field did not return any results but the one with "name" field returned 365 results. The "name" field is mapped like so: > ``` > "name" : { > "analyzer": "word_break", > "type": "string" > }, > > ``` Would/should this prevent it from falling under the "\_all" grouping in searches? > { > "index":{ > "analysis":{ > "analyzer":{ > "word\_break":{ > "type": "custom", > "tokenizer": "standard", > "filter":["word\_delimiter","lowercase","custom\_gram"] > } > }, > "filter":{ > "custom\_gram":{ > "type":"ngram", > "min\_gram":2, > "max\_gram":7 > } > } > } > } > } -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com](mailto:elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com). To view this discussion on the web visit [https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/ed30456a-f86b-49bf-af8f-979c58e74fa4%40googlegroups.com](https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/ed30456a-f86b-49bf-af8f-979c58e74fa4%40googlegroups.com). For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/d/optout](https://groups.google.com/d/optout). ---
**Author:** ![pulkitsinghal](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/pulkitsinghal/32/802_2.png) [@pulkitsinghal](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/pulkitsinghal)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/are-certain-fields-excluded-from-being-part-of--all-grouping/16590/2 "2014-03-25T17:43:46Z")
After reading up on '\_all' a bit more, I now realize that its not implemented to collect the resulting tokens from fields but their "\_source" values instead! So ofcourse it won't work .. boo hoo 😛 On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:53:10 AM UTC-5, pulkitsinghal wrote: > I ran the following two queries on v0.90.5: > > POST /my\_index/product/\_search > > > {"query":{"bool":{"must":[{"query\_string":{"default\_field":"_\_all_ > > ","query":"cinna"}}]}}} > > > POST /my\_index/product/\_search > > {"query":{"bool":{"must":[{"query\_string":{"default\_field":"_name_ > > ","query":"cinna"}}]}}} > > The query with the "\_all" field did not return any results but the one > with "name" field returned 365 results. > > The "name" field is mapped like so: > > > ``` > > "name" : { > > "analyzer": "word_break", > > "type": "string" > > }, > > > > ``` > > Would/should this prevent it from falling under the "\_all" grouping in > searches? > > > { > > "index":{ > > "analysis":{ > > "analyzer":{ > > "word\_break":{ > > "type": "custom", > > "tokenizer": "standard", > > "filter":["word\_delimiter","lowercase","custom\_gram"] > > } > > }, > > "filter":{ > > "custom\_gram":{ > > "type":"ngram", > > "min\_gram":2, > > "max\_gram":7 > > } > > } > > } > > } > > } -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com](mailto:elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com). To view this discussion on the web visit [https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/c2e313b3-8a90-4091-b22e-75b74c87e071%40googlegroups.com](https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/c2e313b3-8a90-4091-b22e-75b74c87e071%40googlegroups.com). For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/d/optout](https://groups.google.com/d/optout). ---
**Author:** ![brian\_yoder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f1d935/32.png) [@brian\_yoder](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/brian_yoder)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/are-certain-fields-excluded-from-being-part-of--all-grouping/16590/3 "2014-03-25T20:35:30Z")
What I did with the high-performance query engine I built in 2001-2010 was to OR the queries for individual fields, creating a query-time version of the \_all field. It was blindingly fast. What I now do with Elasticsearch is to disable the \_all field because of the issues you've found (and also, it greatly increases build performance to omit it) and then issue an OR-like query at run-time to include the fields I want. The added benefit is that each field is queried using its own index analyzer which is exactly what we both want. For example, my Finnish analyzer includes the following char filter: "finnish\_char\_mapper" : { "type" : "mapping", "mappings" : ["Å=\>O", "å=\>o", "W=\>V", "w=\>v"] } Here is a subset of the field mappings for a test index that I created to explore the wide variety of Elasticsearch functions. The cn (common name) field is a multi-type (old ES naming convention); the fn (Finnish name) and an (Arabic name) are also present to explore multi-type with regular fields to ensure their analysis works either way (it did!): "cn" : { "type" : "string", "analyzer" : "english\_stemming\_analyzer", "fields" : { "finnish" : { "type" : "string", "analyzer" : "finnish\_stemming\_analyzer" }, "arabic" : { "type" : "string", "analyzer" : "arabic\_stemming\_Arabic\_analyzer" }, "raw" : { "type" : "string", "index" : "not\_analyzed" } } }, Here's the query. It's programmatically generated. Performance is good even when similarly constructed queries are issued to indices that contain 97 million records across 5 shards: { "bool" : { "must" : { "bool" : { "should" : [ { "match" : { "cn" : { "query" : "osa", "type" : "boolean" } } }, { "match" : { "cn.finnish" : { "query" : "osa", "type" : "boolean" } } }, { "match" : { "cn.arabic" : { "query" : "osa", "type" : "boolean" } } } ], "minimum\_should\_match" : "1" } } } } And here is the one source record that matches (as expected); it's a tiny type based on number of records, but a rich type based on the number of different analyzers that are present within the mappings and data types within those records: { "uid" : 6 , "cn" : ["Åsa Virtanen" , "كايتلين"] , "fn" : [ "Åsa Virtanen" , "كايتلين" ] , "an" : ["Åsa Virtanen" , "كايتلين"] , "sex" : "F" , "married" : true , "date" : "1989-03-26T15:21:55Z" , "location" : [ -116.910522 , 32.804101 ] , "telno" : "6111234567" , "text" : [ "Born in Helsinki" , "Pure Beauty" , "Lives in Granite Hills, CA" ] } -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com](mailto:elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com). To view this discussion on the web visit [https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/e9346812-d4a1-4b51-807f-d6d903015786%40googlegroups.com](https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/e9346812-d4a1-4b51-807f-d6d903015786%40googlegroups.com). For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/d/optout](https://groups.google.com/d/optout). ---
**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2017, 1:40am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/are-certain-fields-excluded-from-being-part-of--all-grouping/16590/4 "2017-07-06T01:40:43Z")