Cross Fields w/ Fuzziness


#1

Hi Elasticsearch,

I've been playing with the new cross_fields multi match type, and I've got
to say that I love it. It's a great way to search complex data without
doing a lot of memory killing denormalization. That said, is there any
plan to implement a fuzziness option with this type? That would certainly
be very valuable.

  • Elliott

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/8d76d304-f74d-4d05-9920-5cd98b84cb2a%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


#2

Any thoughts on this?

The search type is really fantastic and we're already using it in
production, but a fuzziness capability would add so much.

On Monday, April 7, 2014 9:59:54 AM UTC-4, Elliott Bradshaw wrote:

Hi Elasticsearch,

I've been playing with the new cross_fields multi match type, and I've got
to say that I love it. It's a great way to search complex data without
doing a lot of memory killing denormalization. That said, is there any
plan to implement a fuzziness option with this type? That would certainly
be very valuable.

  • Elliott

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/25182266-cf32-4dcd-9081-d966e952e0a2%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


(Samuel Nilsson) #3

I have the same issue, I would like to be able to do a fuzzy search for
some of my fields in a multi_match query of type cross_fields. Right now I
have to do two queries but gives me a disjunct set rather than a
conjunctive result:

{
"query": {
"bool": {
"should": [
{
"multi_match": {
"query": "foo 500",
"type": "cross_fields",
"operator": "and",
"analyzer": "standard",
"fields": [
"display_name",
"strength_text",
"vnr",
"manufacturer",
"categories",
"amount_text",
"color_code",
"item_size_text"
]
}
},
{
"match": {
"display_name": {
"query": "foo 500",
"fuzziness": "auto"
}
}
}
]
}
},
"size": 150,
"from": 0
}

The second match query adds a bunch of hits which makes the first hit
irrelevant..

Does anyone have a solution to this?

Den torsdagen den 10:e april 2014 kl. 14:23:29 UTC+2 skrev Elliott Bradshaw:

Any thoughts on this?

The search type is really fantastic and we're already using it in
production, but a fuzziness capability would add so much.

On Monday, April 7, 2014 9:59:54 AM UTC-4, Elliott Bradshaw wrote:

Hi Elasticsearch,

I've been playing with the new cross_fields multi match type, and I've
got to say that I love it. It's a great way to search complex data without
doing a lot of memory killing denormalization. That said, is there any
plan to implement a fuzziness option with this type? That would certainly
be very valuable.

  • Elliott

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/90838e39-49c6-4446-abc8-1d2781ffd0e2%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


(Ryan Tanner) #4

Any update to this?

On Monday, April 7, 2014 7:59:54 AM UTC-6, Elliott Bradshaw wrote:

Hi Elasticsearch,

I've been playing with the new cross_fields multi match type, and I've got
to say that I love it. It's a great way to search complex data without
doing a lot of memory killing denormalization. That said, is there any
plan to implement a fuzziness option with this type? That would certainly
be very valuable.

  • Elliott

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/51e425aa-cb06-4127-9b4d-a6bd5c123110%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


(Tom-4) #5

+1 fuzziness would be great when using cross_fields

Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2014 22:00:25 UTC+2 schrieb Ryan Tanner:

Any update to this?

On Monday, April 7, 2014 7:59:54 AM UTC-6, Elliott Bradshaw wrote:

Hi Elasticsearch,

I've been playing with the new cross_fields multi match type, and I've
got to say that I love it. It's a great way to search complex data without
doing a lot of memory killing denormalization. That said, is there any
plan to implement a fuzziness option with this type? That would certainly
be very valuable.

  • Elliott

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/119435db-2635-4866-90de-762685e22d41%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


#6

I realize that this post is getting a little old, but does the community
have any feedback on the feasibility of this?

On Friday, May 16, 2014 10:21:53 AM UTC-4, Tom wrote:

+1 fuzziness would be great when using cross_fields

Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2014 22:00:25 UTC+2 schrieb Ryan Tanner:

Any update to this?

On Monday, April 7, 2014 7:59:54 AM UTC-6, Elliott Bradshaw wrote:

Hi Elasticsearch,

I've been playing with the new cross_fields multi match type, and I've
got to say that I love it. It's a great way to search complex data without
doing a lot of memory killing denormalization. That said, is there any
plan to implement a fuzziness option with this type? That would certainly
be very valuable.

  • Elliott

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/6170beb4-36d5-4323-93a1-14a612f601fa%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


(Aurélien FOUCRET) #7

Hi,

I submit an issue few days ago about this
: https://github.com/elasticsearch/elasticsearch/issues/6866.

Le jeudi 17 juillet 2014 14:44:29 UTC+2, Elliott Bradshaw a écrit :

I realize that this post is getting a little old, but does the community
have any feedback on the feasibility of this?

On Friday, May 16, 2014 10:21:53 AM UTC-4, Tom wrote:

+1 fuzziness would be great when using cross_fields

Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2014 22:00:25 UTC+2 schrieb Ryan Tanner:

Any update to this?

On Monday, April 7, 2014 7:59:54 AM UTC-6, Elliott Bradshaw wrote:

Hi Elasticsearch,

I've been playing with the new cross_fields multi match type, and I've
got to say that I love it. It's a great way to search complex data without
doing a lot of memory killing denormalization. That said, is there any
plan to implement a fuzziness option with this type? That would certainly
be very valuable.

  • Elliott

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/abe1f33a-554a-4588-9e69-7d74d6329486%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


(system) #8