# Correct way to handle faceted search tokenization issue for dynamic fields? **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [October 1, 2013, 10:26am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/correct-way-to-handle-faceted-search-tokenization-issue-for-dynamic-fields/13815 "2013-10-01T10:26:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Onur\_Aktas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@Onur\_Aktas](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Onur_Aktas)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 10:26am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/correct-way-to-handle-faceted-search-tokenization-issue-for-dynamic-fields/13815/1 "2013-10-01T10:26:01Z")
Hi all, I want to index an object which has some static fields and dynamic fields (kept in HashMap) holding Product technical feature name and value pair.You can guess that there are thousands of different product types from various product categories which cause 1000s of different technical features/attributes. Each technical feature value starts with f\_ so I applied a mapping something like below. - dynamic\_templates: [ - { - template\_feature: { - mapping: { - type: multi\_field - fields: { - {name}: { - type: {dynamic\_type} - index: analyzed } - org: { - type: {dynamic\_type} - index: not\_analyzed } } } - match: f\_\* } } ] However, when I check mapping I see that ElasticSearch creates a mapping for each inserted technical feature. So it means when product list grows; mapping will significantly grow and there are about total 2000 different technical feature value. - f\_material: { - type: multi\_field - fields: { - f\_material: { - type: string } - org: { - type: string - index: not\_analyzed - omit\_norms: true - index\_options: docs - include\_in\_all: false } } } - f\_period\_type: { - type: multi\_field - fields: { - f\_period\_type: { - type: string } - org: { - type: string - index: not\_analyzed - omit\_norms: true - index\_options: docs - include\_in\_all: false } } } - f\_production\_type: { - type: multi\_field - fields: { - f\_production\_type: { - type: string } - org: { - type: string - index: not\_analyzed - omit\_norms: true - index\_options: docs - include\_in\_all: false } } } - f\_size: { - type: multi\_field - fields: { - f\_size: { - type: string } - org: { - type: string - index: not\_analyzed - omit\_norms: true - index\_options: docs - include\_in\_all: false } } } - f\_style: { - type: multi\_field - fields: { - f\_style: { - type: string } - org: { - type: string - index: not\_analyzed - omit\_norms: true - index\_options: docs - include\_in\_all: false } } } I applied this mapping just to perform a faceted search without whitespace tokenization; but I think it is not the correct way. Could you please advice the correct way to do this? KR, Onur -- 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). For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). ---
**Author:** ![Tchinkatchuk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tchinkatchuk](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Tchinkatchuk)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 10:43am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/correct-way-to-handle-faceted-search-tokenization-issue-for-dynamic-fields/13815/2 "2013-11-21T10:43:31Z")
Hi, I have exactly the same way to do it and the sema issue. COuld you help me if you foudn the answer ? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Onur\_Aktas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@Onur\_Aktas](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Onur_Aktas)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 10:58am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/correct-way-to-handle-faceted-search-tokenization-issue-for-dynamic-fields/13815/3 "2013-11-21T10:58:18Z")
On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 1:26:01 PM UTC+3, Onur Aktaş wrote: > Hi all, > > I want to index an object which has some static fields and dynamic fields > (kept in HashMap) holding Product technical feature name and value pair.You > can guess that there are thousands of different product types from various > product categories which cause 1000s of different technical > features/attributes. > > Each technical feature value starts with f\_ so I applied a mapping > something like below. > > - dynamic\_templates: [ > - { > - template\_feature: { > - mapping: { > - type: multi\_field > - fields: { > - {name}: { > - type: {dynamic\_type} > - index: analyzed > } > > - org: { > - type: {dynamic\_type} > - index: not\_analyzed > } > } > } > > - match: f\_\* > } > } > ] > > However, when I check mapping I see that Elasticsearch creates a mapping > for each inserted technical feature. So it means when product list grows; > mapping will significantly grow and there are about total 2000 different > technical feature value. > > - f\_material: { > - type: multi\_field > - fields: { > - f\_material: { > - type: string > } > > - org: { > - type: string > - index: not\_analyzed > - omit\_norms: true > - index\_options: docs > - include\_in\_all: false > } > } > } > > - f\_period\_type: { > - type: multi\_field > - fields: { > - f\_period\_type: { > - type: string > } > > - org: { > - type: string > - index: not\_analyzed > - omit\_norms: true > - index\_options: docs > - include\_in\_all: false > } > } > } > > - f\_production\_type: { > - type: multi\_field > - fields: { > - f\_production\_type: { > - type: string > } > > - org: { > - type: string > - index: not\_analyzed > - omit\_norms: true > - index\_options: docs > - include\_in\_all: false > } > } > } > > - f\_size: { > - type: multi\_field > - fields: { > - f\_size: { > - type: string > } > > - org: { > - type: string > - index: not\_analyzed > - omit\_norms: true > - index\_options: docs > - include\_in\_all: false > } > } > } > > - f\_style: { > - type: multi\_field > - fields: { > - f\_style: { > - type: string > } > > - org: { > - type: string > - index: not\_analyzed > - omit\_norms: true > - index\_options: docs > - include\_in\_all: false > } > } > } > > I applied this mapping just to perform a faceted search without whitespace > tokenization; but I think it is not the correct way. > > Could you please advice the correct way to do this? > > KR, > Onur -- 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). For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). ---
**Author:** ![Onur\_Aktas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@Onur\_Aktas](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Onur_Aktas)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 11:01am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/correct-way-to-handle-faceted-search-tokenization-issue-for-dynamic-fields/13815/4 "2013-11-21T11:01:35Z")
Hi Georges, We decided to give a name to each feature and use it instead of it's title. name -\> title where name is feature + (order of the feature) For example, lets say Category A and B has following technical feature fields. Category A: Material, Size Category B: Color, Size Then we mapped Category A as: p01 -\> Material, p02 -\> Size Category B as: p01-\> Color p02 -\> Size Then we assumed any category can have max 20 feature values and then mapped each feature by its name instead of its title. Finally we had a mapping something like this: ``` "p01":{ "type":"multi_field", "fields":{ "analyzed":{ "type":"string", "index":"analyzed" }, "notanalyzed":{ "type":"string", "index":"not_analyzed" } } }, "p02":{ "type":"multi_field", "fields":{ "analyzed":{ "type":"string", "index":"analyzed" }, "notanalyzed":{ "type":"string", "index":"not_analyzed" } } } ``` .. goes up to p20 So products will have a data something like: Product A p01 -\> Steel p02 -\> 15 meters. _Pros_ You do not have to create (category count \* unique feature name) mappings. _Cons_ You should not rename feature's name; otherwise products will show wrong data. Hope it helps. KR, Onur On Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:43:32 PM UTC+2, Georges@Bibtol wrote: > Hi, > > I have exactly the same way to do it and the sema issue. > COuld you help me if you foudn the answer ? > > Thanks. > > -- > View this message in context: > [http://elasticsearch-users.115913.n3.nabble.com/Correct-way-to-handle-faceted-search-tokenization-issue-for-dynamic-fields-tp4041972p4044698.html](http://elasticsearch-users.115913.n3.nabble.com/Correct-way-to-handle-faceted-search-tokenization-issue-for-dynamic-fields-tp4041972p4044698.html) > > Sent from the Elasticsearch Users mailing list archive at [Nabble.com](http://Nabble.com). On Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:43:32 PM UTC+2, Georges@Bibtol wrote: > Hi, > > I have exactly the same way to do it and the sema issue. > COuld you help me if you foudn the answer ? > > Thanks. > > -- > View this message in context: > [http://elasticsearch-users.115913.n3.nabble.com/Correct-way-to-handle-faceted-search-tokenization-issue-for-dynamic-fields-tp4041972p4044698.html](http://elasticsearch-users.115913.n3.nabble.com/Correct-way-to-handle-faceted-search-tokenization-issue-for-dynamic-fields-tp4041972p4044698.html) > Sent from the Elasticsearch Users mailing list archive at [Nabble.com](http://Nabble.com). -- 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). For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). ---
**Author:** ![Tchinkatchuk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tchinkatchuk](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Tchinkatchuk)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/correct-way-to-handle-faceted-search-tokenization-issue-for-dynamic-fields/13815/5 "2013-11-27T16:54:38Z")
Thanks for the answer. Unfortunately, I do not want to rename all my dynamic attributes. here's a little mapping configuration I have : { "article": { "\_default\_": { "dynamic\_templates": [{ "base": { "match": "\*", "mapping": { "type" : "multi\_field", "fields" : { "{name}" : { "type" : "string", "index" : "analyzed", "store" : "yes", "analyzer" : "my\_string\_analyzer", "search\_analyzer" : "default", "index\_analyzer" : "default\_edge\_n\_grams" }, "raw\_value": {"type": "string", "analyzer": "not\_analyzed"} } } } }] } } } I want to be able to get facets this way : GET \_search { "facets": { "brand": { "terms": { "field" : "brand.raw\_value" } } }, "query": { "filtered" : { "query" : { "query\_string" : { "query" : "\*\*\*" } } } } } cause if i do it on brand and not brand.raw\_value, my bran value is tokenized. -\> "Elastic Search" wille render 2 facets possibilities "Elastic" & "Value" instead of just one. Such a shame. Do I miss something ? ---
**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, 2:04am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/correct-way-to-handle-faceted-search-tokenization-issue-for-dynamic-fields/13815/6 "2017-07-06T02:04:30Z")