# Elasticsearch : order aggregation by score performance
**URL:** https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-order-aggregation-by-score-performance/74231
**Category:** Elasticsearch
**Created:** [February 7, 2017, 1:54pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-order-aggregation-by-score-performance/74231 "2017-02-07T13:54:14Z")
**Posts on this page:** 12
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Mickael\_Magniez](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Mickael_Magniez)
#### Post date: [February 7, 2017, 1:54pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-order-aggregation-by-score-performance/74231/1 "2017-02-07T13:54:14Z")
Hi,
On elastic 5.2, I'm trying to sort my aggregation buckets by maximum score of matching documents, but performance are terrible (x10) compare to the \_count sort.
```
{
"query": {
"match": {"text": "shirt"}
},
"aggs": {
"offers": {
"terms": {
"field": "category",
"order": {
"max_score.value": "desc"
}
},
"aggs": {
"max_score": {
"max": {
"script": {
"lang": "painless",
"inline": "_score"
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
```
Is there any to achieve this with decent performance?
I've tried on elastic 1.7, and performance are better for this sort.
Best regards
---
### Author:  [@Mark\_Harwood](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Mark_Harwood)
#### Post date: [February 7, 2017, 1:59pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-order-aggregation-by-score-performance/74231/2 "2017-02-07T13:59:13Z")
The `sampler` aggregation may be of interest.
What is the business question you're trying to answer? We can figure out what the best approach is once we understand the question better.
---
### Author:  [@Mickael\_Magniez](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Mickael_Magniez)
#### Post date: [February 7, 2017, 2:07pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-order-aggregation-by-score-performance/74231/3 "2017-02-07T14:07:25Z")
Thanks for your answer.
Sampler is not exactly what i need, i don't want to retreive the categories of the most relevants documents, but all categories, order by max (or avg) relevance of the documents in this category.
My index is a typical ecommerce product index, with products belonging to categories. So when i search for "laptop", i want to display the "most relevant" categories.
---
### Author:  [@Mark\_Harwood](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Mark_Harwood)
#### Post date: [February 7, 2017, 2:22pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-order-aggregation-by-score-performance/74231/4 "2017-02-07T14:22:57Z")
Average relevance may not be the most helpful if your query is in any way sloppy (ORs. fuzzy..).
If you search for "blue shirt" the average relevance of the true best category (let's say `menswear`) would be diluted by the long tail of clothes that only matched part of the query e.g. the many "blue jeans".
A category with a single match on it e.g. `electrical` might match on "shirt press" which might be the rarer of the 2 search terms and therefore score more highly than the average menswear result. Using samples keeps your analysis focused on the relevant results and not the garbage.
Try put a "significant\_terms" agg on the category field under the sampler. This will help account for the uneven category sizes and detect an uplift in frequency in the results.
Similarly described docs will match similarly so maybe you want to also try the `diversified_sampler` to diversify on something like `manufacturer` and ensure a healthy sample.
---
### Author:  [@Mickael\_Magniez](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Mickael_Magniez)
#### Post date: [February 7, 2017, 2:44pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-order-aggregation-by-score-performance/74231/5 "2017-02-07T14:44:04Z")
Sampler solution seems to work for some use case.
But doc count are inaccurate, and results for my uses cases seem better with an order on score. I'd really like to understand why this query performed well on ES 1.7, but not anymore on ES 5.2.
I have one question about the score result of the sampler aggregation.
I have 2 categories : smartphone and accessories, for the keyword "iphone", query return a few very well ranked smartphone, and many less scored accessories.
With a shard\_size of 100 (i have 5 shards), result is :
```
"buckets": [
{
"key": "smartphone",
"doc_count": 85,
"score": 63.43663808983667,
"bg_count": 4408
},
{
"key": "accesory",
"doc_count": 529,
"score": 37.22400913694616,
"bg_count": 110883
}
]
```
Bu with shard\_size of 1000 :
```
"buckets": [
{
"key": "accesory",
"doc_count": 4634,
"score": 76.95471502433895,
"bg_count": 119001
},
{
"key": "smartphone",
"doc_count": 99,
"score": 0.8366545210690426,
"bg_count": 4939
}
]
```
Why smartphone score is so low when i increase shard\_size?
---
### Author:  [@Mark\_Harwood](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Mark_Harwood)
#### Post date: [February 7, 2017, 3:18pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-order-aggregation-by-score-performance/74231/6 "2017-02-07T15:18:17Z")
> [@Mickael\_Magniez](#):
>
> Why smartphone score is so low when i increase shard\_size?
You're extending the sample to look at lower-quality matches. This video shows exactly the effects of sample sizes and significance scores: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azP15yvbOBA&t=3s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azP15yvbOBA&t=3s) You can clearly see when the signal is strong and weak.
However - just because you have a high-score from a string-matching perspective (an iphone cable may mention "iphone" many times in the product description) it doesn't mean that is what people searching for "iphone" generally want to find.
To figure out what people who search for "iphone" really want you need to turn your attention away from the descriptions in your product catalog and pay closer attention to your click logs. We did a demo of this on some real data (search term + clicked product code + category) here [1] which may be of interest.
[1] [https://www.elastic.co/elasticon/conf/2016/sf/graph-capabilities-in-the-elastic-stack](https://www.elastic.co/elasticon/conf/2016/sf/graph-capabilities-in-the-elastic-stack) (see 28 mins into this)
---
### Author:  [@Mickael\_Magniez](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Mickael_Magniez)
#### Post date: [February 7, 2017, 3:27pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-order-aggregation-by-score-performance/74231/7 "2017-02-07T15:27:44Z")
i already have a complex function score which take into consideration
- less weight for accessories
- more weight for popular products
So in my result list, the first results are from smartphone category not accesory, that's why i want to order by aggregation by score, because i know my score is correct.
---
### Author:  [@Mark\_Harwood](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Mark_Harwood)
#### Post date: [February 7, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-order-aggregation-by-score-performance/74231/8 "2017-02-07T15:31:37Z")
> [@Mickael\_Magniez](#):
>
> i already have a complex function score
Is that adaptive? If I search for "iphone cable" does that change the weightings used?
---
### Author:  [@Mickael\_Magniez](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Mickael_Magniez)
#### Post date: [February 7, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-order-aggregation-by-score-performance/74231/9 "2017-02-07T15:37:36Z")
No but the presence of the "cable", which is present within fields with high weight is enough to the accessory category come first
---
### Author:  [@Mark\_Harwood](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Mark_Harwood)
#### Post date: [February 7, 2017, 5:12pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-order-aggregation-by-score-performance/74231/10 "2017-02-07T17:12:54Z")
> [@Mickael\_Magniez](#):
>
> is enough to the accessory category come first
OK so let's put the quality of the scoring logic aside and consider what you do with the results of these scores.
- A system based on "max" score is a first-past-the-post system and could make bad recommendations on the evidence of a single high-scoring outlier. There's little weight-of-evidence to back the suggestion.
- A system based on "avg" score of _all_ results in a category will dilute any high scores with the number of low-scores.
My proposal of a system based on looking at a sample of high-scoring results is the middle ground between these 2 extremes.
If you want accurate doc counts[1] for all categories by all means use a regular `terms` agg on all results to get the raw data but in the same request use a `sampler` and embedded `significant_terms` or straight `terms` on category field to get a score you can use to rank the importance of these categories.
[1] Accurate doc counts can sometimes be hard to explain. I know of an ecommerce search consultancy who always advocate making user queries ANDed (i.e iphone AND cable) so that facet counts make more sense (they would exclude things like HDMI/power/ethernet cables) and they automatically resort to falling back to OR queries if the number of results is low. Users don't necessarily know about the difference between these decisions.
---
### Author:  [@Mickael\_Magniez](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Mickael_Magniez)
#### Post date: [February 8, 2017, 8:47am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-order-aggregation-by-score-performance/74231/11 "2017-02-08T08:47:28Z")
Thank you for your detailled answer.
But i'd really like to understand with adding score information on aggregation is so slow
This is profiling information
Aggregation with score
```
{
"category": {
"terms": {
"field": "category",
"size": 100
},
"aggs": {
"score": {
"max": {
"script": {
"lang": "painless",
"inline": "_score"
}
}
}
}
}
}
```
Profile result :
```
{
"type": "org.elasticsearch.search.aggregations.bucket.terms.GlobalOrdinalsStringTermsAggregator$WithHash",
"description": "category",
"time": "97.76644000ms",
"breakdown": {
"reduce": 0,
"build_aggregation": 90977021,
"build_aggregation_count": 1,
"initialize": 1760,
"initialize_count": 1,
"reduce_count": 0,
"collect": 6773280,
"collect_count": 14377
},
"children": [{
"type": "org.elasticsearch.search.aggregations.metrics.max.MaxAggregator",
"description": "score",
"time": "4.316251000ms",
"breakdown": {
"reduce": 0,
"build_aggregation": 5004,
"build_aggregation_count": 125,
"initialize": 315,
"initialize_count": 1,
"reduce_count": 0,
"collect": 4296429,
"collect_count": 14377
}
}]
}
```
Aggregation with field
```
{
"category": {
"terms": {
"field": "category",
"size": 100
},
"aggs": {
"score": {
"max": {
"field": "product_id"
}
}
}
}
}
```
Profile result :
```
{
"type": "org.elasticsearch.search.aggregations.bucket.terms.GlobalOrdinalsStringTermsAggregator$WithHash",
"description": "category",
"time": "6.224784000ms",
"breakdown": {
"reduce": 0,
"build_aggregation": 1436553,
"build_aggregation_count": 1,
"initialize": 1825,
"initialize_count": 1,
"reduce_count": 0,
"collect": 4771863,
"collect_count": 14541
},
"children": [{
"type": "org.elasticsearch.search.aggregations.metrics.max.MaxAggregator",
"description": "score",
"time": "0.4531270000ms",
"breakdown": {
"reduce": 0,
"build_aggregation": 7501,
"build_aggregation_count": 123,
"initialize": 298,
"initialize_count": 1,
"reduce_count": 0,
"collect": 430663,
"collect_count": 14541
}
}]
}
```
---
### Author:  [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2017, 8:48am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-order-aggregation-by-score-performance/74231/12 "2017-03-08T08:48:13Z")
This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.