# Facet on Nested Objects filtered by Outer object?

**URL:** <https://discuss.elastic.co/t/facet-on-nested-objects-filtered-by-outer-object/9553>\
**Category:** Elasticsearch\
**Created:** [November 5, 2012, 6:17am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/facet-on-nested-objects-filtered-by-outer-object/9553 "2012-11-05T06:17:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 11\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![phill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@phill](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/phill)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 6:17am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/facet-on-nested-objects-filtered-by-outer-object/9553/1 "2012-11-05T06:17:04Z")

</div>

Is there a way to limit nested objects by something in the outer objects  
and then do a facet on the nested objects?

What I tried was:  
(1) Filter for a list of nested of objects that match on two fields in  
the nested object.  
(2) The nested objects are limited to those that match a query or filter  
on the outer object by being part of query on the outer object.

I thought if I  
(3) added a scope to nested query,  
and  
(4) Built a facet on the nested objects scope.

I'd get exactly what I needed.

This approach doesn't work, because the outer filter or query (2) does  
NOT affect the documents found in nested scope for the facet (3)  
Here is a cut down verion of my query to show what I am talking about.

{

"query" : {

"filtered" : {

"query" : {

"nested" : {

"filter" : { \<--------- (1) filter for only the nested I wanted, it  
works great.

"and" : {

"filters" : [ {

"terms" : {

"MyNested.field1" : ["X"],

}

}, {

"terms" : {

"MyNested.field2" : ["a", “b”, “c”],

"execution" : "and"

}

} ]

}

},

"path" : "MyNested",

"\_scope" : "MyNestedScope" \<---- (3) scoped for faceting

}

},

"filter" : { \<------- (2) but limited to those that are nested within  
matching outer objects, it also works great.

"terms" : {

"accessControl" : [“TheUserID"]

}

}

}

},

"facets" : {

"SubPathFacet" : {

…

},

"scope" : "MyNestedScope" \<--- (4) use of scope of nested objects to do  
stats on the matching nested objects.

}

},

}

Note I have to use either nested or child because the child/nested  
object has to match _2_ fields for this to work.

Since I can't seem to limit the nested objects to those that are in  
matching outer objects, it seems my scheme to build a facet based on  
specially built nested objects is impossible.  
I can't see how a facet on nested objects would ever be useful unless  
the only facet one needed was the totals of all nested objects.

Am I missing something? Is there some way I can facet on nested objects  
that are narrowed/limited by a query or filter on the outer objects?

Do I have to change to child objects instead and upgrade to 19.10 ? Then  
I can use "has\_parent" to solve this problem?

-Paul

--

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Igor\_Motov](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/igor_motov/32/45193_2.png) [@Igor\_Motov](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Igor_Motov)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/facet-on-nested-objects-filtered-by-outer-object/9553/2 "2012-11-05T17:10:35Z")

</div>

Could you give an example for (2)? Since a nested object (or a child) can  
belong to only one parent object, I don't quite understand what you are  
trying to achieve.

On Monday, November 5, 2012 1:16:45 AM UTC-5, P Hill wrote:

> Is there a way to limit nested objects by something in the outer objects  
> and then do a facet on the nested objects?
> 
> What I tried was:  
> (1) Filter for a list of nested of objects that match on two fields in  
> the nested object.  
> (2) The nested objects are limited to those that match a query or filter  
> on the outer object by being part of query on the outer object.
> 
> I thought if I  
> (3) added a scope to nested query,  
> and  
> (4) Built a facet on the nested objects scope.
> 
> I'd get exactly what I needed.
> 
> This approach doesn't work, because the outer filter or query (2) does  
> NOT affect the documents found in nested scope for the facet (3)  
> Here is a cut down verion of my query to show what I am talking about.
> 
> {
> 
> "query" : {
> 
> "filtered" : {
> 
> "query" : {
> 
> "nested" : {
> 
> "filter" : { \<--------- (1) filter for only the nested I wanted, it  
> works great.
> 
> "and" : {
> 
> "filters" : [ {
> 
> "terms" : {
> 
> "MyNested.field1" : ["X"],
> 
> }
> 
> }, {
> 
> "terms" : {
> 
> "MyNested.field2" : ["a", �b�, �c�],
> 
> "execution" : "and"
> 
> }
> 
> } ]
> 
> }
> 
> },
> 
> "path" : "MyNested",
> 
> "\_scope" : "MyNestedScope" \<---- (3) scoped for faceting
> 
> }
> 
> },
> 
> "filter" : { \<------- (2) but limited to those that are nested within  
> matching outer objects, it also works great.
> 
> "terms" : {
> 
> "accessControl" : [�TheUserID"]
> 
> }
> 
> }
> 
> }
> 
> },
> 
> "facets" : {
> 
> "SubPathFacet" : {
> 
> �
> 
> },
> 
> "scope" : "MyNestedScope" \<--- (4) use of scope of nested objects to do  
> stats on the matching nested objects.
> 
> }
> 
> },
> 
> }
> 
> Note I have to use either nested or child because the child/nested  
> object has to match _2_ fields for this to work.
> 
> Since I can't seem to limit the nested objects to those that are in  
> matching outer objects, it seems my scheme to build a facet based on  
> specially built nested objects is impossible.  
> I can't see how a facet on nested objects would ever be useful unless  
> the only facet one needed was the totals of all nested objects.
> 
> Am I missing something? Is there some way I can facet on nested objects  
> that are narrowed/limited by a query or filter on the outer objects?
> 
> Do I have to change to child objects instead and upgrade to 19.10 ? Then  
> I can use "has\_parent" to solve this problem?
> 
> -Paul

--

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![phill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@phill](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/phill)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 6:51pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/facet-on-nested-objects-filtered-by-outer-object/9553/3 "2012-11-05T18:51:31Z")

</div>

On 11/5/2012 9:10 AM, Igor Motov wrote:

> Could you give an example for (2)? Since a nested object (or a child)  
> can belong to only one parent object, I don't quite understand what  
> you are trying to achieve.  
> Summary: Facet on nested objects that meet some criteria that are each  
> nested in one parent object that ALSO meets some criteria.  
> Not all nested objects, but a few of them. Not those few nested that  
> match, but in addition only those whose parents also match some criteria.

All Parents \> The matching Parents (\> means the set on the left is  
larger than the set on the right).  
All nested objects \> The matching nested objects.

I hope the above suggests the idea that I want to do a facet on the  
nested/child objects. My problem is that there seems no way to identify  
a scope that is only those that match both the nested criteria and the  
parent criteria and use that small set in the facet.

Talking about it like this, it sounds like something that could really  
use a "has\_parent" filter/query, but currently I'm only running 19.8 and  
it doesn't have "has\_parent".

If this were all about three fields in the parent, all I'd need was a  
filter to pick the parents and run a facet on the parents, but it is  
not. At the simplest it is one (or more fields) in the parent and  
2 fields in the nested. Since the criteria is about 2 fields in the  
nested, I need to avoid the cross (sub) object joins; therefore, I  
thought to use a set of nested objects and not just multi-objects in the  
parent. The important field I'm joining to in the parent is the  
multi-valued Access Control List (my example just said user ID)

Even though I've offered to others on this list that they not worry  
about a "little" de-normalization, I'm not quick to repeat all the  
values of the entire ACL in every value of what is now the nested  
objects. It seemed a bit of combinatorial explosion to me, but maybe  
I'm over-worried.

Why? Because the nested objects are already each a repeated set  
de-normalized values set up just for a needs of a particular query  
needed in the application. It seemed excessive to turn one field from  
the parent into two analyzed fields in a nested object and repeat the  
nested objects with all appropriate variation resulting in 5-15 nested  
objects. Then adding the non-analyzed ACL would be 5-15 repeats of the  
ACL for each sub-object. That just seems like a lot of  
de-normalization, since I've taken two fields and turned it into a ~100  
de-normalized values. But what's another few 100 values in an index.

I could take my own advise and de-normalize some more data, and select  
only within the nested object with a facet on that set of types. If I  
did that I'd be working with only the usual case of a query/filter with  
a facet.

-Paul

> On Monday, November 5, 2012 1:16:45 AM UTC-5, P Hill wrote:
> 
> ```
> Is there a way to limit nested objects by something in the outer
> objects
> and then do a facet on the nested objects?
> 
> What I tried was:
> (1) Filter for a list of nested of objects that match on two
> fields in
> the nested object.
> (2) The nested objects are limited to those that match a query or
> filter
> on the outer object by being part of query on the outer object.
> 
> I thought if I
> (3) added a scope to nested query,
> and
> (4) Built a facet on the nested objects scope.
> 
> I'd get exactly what I needed.
> 
> This approach doesn't work, because the outer filter or query (2)
> does
> NOT affect the documents found in nested scope for the facet (3)
> Here is a cut down verion of my query to show what I am talking
> about.
> 
> {
> 
> "query" : {
> 
> "filtered" : {
> 
> "query" : {
> 
> "nested" : {
> 
> "filter" : { <--------- (1) filter for only the nested I wanted, it
> works great.
> 
> "and" : {
> 
> "filters" : [ {
> 
> "terms" : {
> 
> "MyNested.field1" : ["X"],
> 
> }
> 
> }, {
> 
> "terms" : {
> 
> "MyNested.field2" : ["a", �b�, �c�],
> 
> "execution" : "and"
> 
> }
> 
> } ]
> 
> }
> 
> },
> 
> "path" : "MyNested",
> 
> "_scope" : "MyNestedScope" <---- (3) scoped for faceting
> 
> }
> 
> },
> 
> "filter" : { <------- (2) but limited to those that are nested within
> matching outer objects, it also works great.
> 
> "terms" : {
> 
> "accessControl" : [�TheUserID"]
> 
> }
> 
> }
> 
> }
> 
> },
> 
> "facets" : {
> 
> "SubPathFacet" : {
> 
> �
> 
> },
> 
> "scope" : "MyNestedScope" <--- (4) use of scope of nested objects
> to do
> stats on the matching nested objects.
> 
> }
> 
> },
> 
> }
> 
> Note I have to use either nested or child because the child/nested
> object has to match _2_ fields for this to work.
> 
> Since I can't seem to limit the nested objects to those that are in
> matching outer objects, it seems my scheme to build a facet based on
> specially built nested objects is impossible.
> I can't see how a facet on nested objects would ever be useful unless
> the only facet one needed was the totals of all nested objects.
> 
> Am I missing something? Is there some way I can facet on nested
> objects
> that are narrowed/limited by a query or filter on the outer objects?
> 
> Do I have to change to child objects instead and upgrade to 19.10
> ? Then
> I can use "has_parent" to solve this problem?
> 
> -Paul
> 
> ```
> 
> --

--

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Igor\_Motov](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/igor_motov/32/45193_2.png) [@Igor\_Motov](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Igor_Motov)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 8:38pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/facet-on-nested-objects-filtered-by-outer-object/9553/4 "2012-11-05T20:38:35Z")

</div>

Could you take a look at this example [https://groups.google.com/d/topic/elasticsearch/\_cGG9F4Wwdc/discussion · GitHub](https://gist.github.com/4020172) and  
modify the output so it meets your requirements?

On Monday, November 5, 2012 1:51:17 PM UTC-5, P Hill wrote:

> On 11/5/2012 9:10 AM, Igor Motov wrote:
> 
> > Could you give an example for (2)? Since a nested object (or a child)  
> > can belong to only one parent object, I don't quite understand what  
> > you are trying to achieve.  
> > Summary: Facet on nested objects that meet some criteria that are each  
> > nested in one parent object that ALSO meets some criteria.  
> > Not all nested objects, but a few of them. Not those few nested that  
> > match, but in addition only those whose parents also match some criteria.
> 
> All Parents \> The matching Parents (\> means the set on the left is  
> larger than the set on the right).  
> All nested objects \> The matching nested objects.
> 
> I hope the above suggests the idea that I want to do a facet on the  
> nested/child objects. My problem is that there seems no way to identify  
> a scope that is only those that match both the nested criteria and the  
> parent criteria and use that small set in the facet.
> 
> Talking about it like this, it sounds like something that could really  
> use a "has\_parent" filter/query, but currently I'm only running 19.8 and  
> it doesn't have "has\_parent".
> 
> If this were all about three fields in the parent, all I'd need was a  
> filter to pick the parents and run a facet on the parents, but it is  
> not. At the simplest it is one (or more fields) in the parent and  
> 2 fields in the nested. Since the criteria is about 2 fields in the  
> nested, I need to avoid the cross (sub) object joins; therefore, I  
> thought to use a set of nested objects and not just multi-objects in the  
> parent. The important field I'm joining to in the parent is the  
> multi-valued Access Control List (my example just said user ID)
> 
> Even though I've offered to others on this list that they not worry  
> about a "little" de-normalization, I'm not quick to repeat all the  
> values of the entire ACL in every value of what is now the nested  
> objects. It seemed a bit of combinatorial explosion to me, but maybe  
> I'm over-worried.
> 
> Why? Because the nested objects are already each a repeated set  
> de-normalized values set up just for a needs of a particular query  
> needed in the application. It seemed excessive to turn one field from  
> the parent into two analyzed fields in a nested object and repeat the  
> nested objects with all appropriate variation resulting in 5-15 nested  
> objects. Then adding the non-analyzed ACL would be 5-15 repeats of the  
> ACL for each sub-object. That just seems like a lot of  
> de-normalization, since I've taken two fields and turned it into a ~100  
> de-normalized values. But what's another few 100 values in an index.
> 
> I could take my own advise and de-normalize some more data, and select  
> only within the nested object with a facet on that set of types. If I  
> did that I'd be working with only the usual case of a query/filter with  
> a facet.
> 
> -Paul
> 
> > On Monday, November 5, 2012 1:16:45 AM UTC-5, P Hill wrote:
> > 
> > ```
> > Is there a way to limit nested objects by something in the outer 
> > objects 
> > and then do a facet on the nested objects? 
> > 
> > What I tried was: 
> > (1) Filter for a list of nested of objects that match on two 
> > fields in 
> > the nested object. 
> > (2) The nested objects are limited to those that match a query or 
> > filter 
> > on the outer object by being part of query on the outer object. 
> > 
> > I thought if I 
> > (3) added a scope to nested query, 
> > and 
> > (4) Built a facet on the nested objects scope. 
> > 
> > I'd get exactly what I needed. 
> > 
> > This approach doesn't work, because the outer filter or query (2) 
> > does 
> > NOT affect the documents found in nested scope for the facet (3) 
> > Here is a cut down verion of my query to show what I am talking 
> > about. 
> > 
> > { 
> > 
> > "query" : { 
> > 
> > "filtered" : { 
> > 
> > "query" : { 
> > 
> > "nested" : { 
> > 
> > "filter" : { <--------- (1) filter for only the nested I wanted, it 
> > works great. 
> > 
> > "and" : { 
> > 
> > "filters" : [ { 
> > 
> > "terms" : { 
> > 
> > "MyNested.field1" : ["X"], 
> > 
> > } 
> > 
> > }, { 
> > 
> > "terms" : { 
> > 
> > "MyNested.field2" : ["a", �b�, �c�], 
> > 
> > "execution" : "and" 
> > 
> > } 
> > 
> > } ] 
> > 
> > } 
> > 
> > }, 
> > 
> > "path" : "MyNested", 
> > 
> > "_scope" : "MyNestedScope" <---- (3) scoped for faceting 
> > 
> > } 
> > 
> > }, 
> > 
> > "filter" : { <------- (2) but limited to those that are nested 
> > 
> > ```
> 
> within
> 
> > ```
> > matching outer objects, it also works great. 
> > 
> > "terms" : { 
> > 
> > "accessControl" : [�TheUserID"] 
> > 
> > } 
> > 
> > } 
> > 
> > } 
> > 
> > }, 
> > 
> > "facets" : { 
> > 
> > "SubPathFacet" : { 
> > 
> > � 
> > 
> > }, 
> > 
> > "scope" : "MyNestedScope" <--- (4) use of scope of nested objects 
> > to do 
> > stats on the matching nested objects. 
> > 
> > } 
> > 
> > }, 
> > 
> > } 
> > 
> > Note I have to use either nested or child because the child/nested 
> > object has to match _2_ fields for this to work. 
> > 
> > Since I can't seem to limit the nested objects to those that are in 
> > matching outer objects, it seems my scheme to build a facet based on 
> > specially built nested objects is impossible. 
> > I can't see how a facet on nested objects would ever be useful 
> > 
> > ```
> 
> unless
> 
> > ```
> > the only facet one needed was the totals of all nested objects. 
> > 
> > Am I missing something? Is there some way I can facet on nested 
> > objects 
> > that are narrowed/limited by a query or filter on the outer objects? 
> > 
> > Do I have to change to child objects instead and upgrade to 19.10 
> > ? Then 
> > I can use "has_parent" to solve this problem? 
> > 
> > -Paul 
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > --

--

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![phill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@phill](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/phill)\
**Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 1:19am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/facet-on-nested-objects-filtered-by-outer-object/9553/5 "2012-11-06T01:19:39Z")

</div>

On 11/5/2012 12:38 PM, Igor Motov wrote:

> Could you take a look at this example [https://groups.google.com/d/topic/elasticsearch/\_cGG9F4Wwdc/discussion · GitHub](https://gist.github.com/4020172)  
> and modify the output so it meets your requirements?  
> I will take a look at that sometime soon! Thanks, -Paul

--

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![phill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@phill](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/phill)\
**Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/facet-on-nested-objects-filtered-by-outer-object/9553/6 "2012-11-06T19:18:04Z")

</div>

Thank you for taking the time to start a gist on this.

I have been trying to work out why I can't build a query against my data  
very much "like" yours and get the match parent AND match nested  
behavior that your example does.  
Obviously, it is not as much "like" yours as I think it is. 🙂  
I have yet to modify yours to include too much as you my query does, but  
I will keep trying.

My 1st question is:  
Where is it defined that a scope can be defined on a subquery?  
I thought scopes where about saving a filter result? Am I getting scope  
confused with caching?

I am also not sure I have a users model of how your query works

When I write a  
query: { bool: { must: [ { } , { , scope: "my\_scope" }  
] } }  
I thought it was doing something like:

(1) INNER\_JOIN( queryA(), queryB() )  
That is, it the results of running queryA and separately (without  
consideration of queryA) the results of running queryB are generated.  
Only then are the two result sets joined together.

Thus I couldn't figure out how declaring a scope for queryB would  
include queryA and thus why I was scratching my head about the  
usefulness of a nested query scope,  
but your working example suggests that it is more like.

(2) queryB(queryA())  
queryB is applied using the documents returned by the results of  
queryA(), thus the results at the end of queryB is by both queryA and  
queryB, as you demonstrate.

Is (2) what is really going on or is there another model of how it works?

* * *

Re-reading the facets page again, I spotted another place that I was  
making an assumption related to scope.

> **[Elasticsearch Platform — Find real-time answers at scale](https://www.elastic.co)**
>
> Power insights and outcomes with the Elasticsearch Platform and AI. See into your data and find answers that matter with enterprise solutions designed to help you build, observe, and protect. Try Elasticsearch free today.

"There’s one _important distinction_ to keep in mind. While search  
/queries/ restrict both the returned documents and facet counts, search  
/filters/ restrict only returned documents — but /not/ facet counts."  
I was assuming that the term "search filters" is the final filter listed  
directly within the "search" struct, not any filter mentioned within a  
some filtered query (or other query that includes a filter).  
For example,  
search {  
query: {  
filtered: {  
query: { ... },  
filter: { ... } \<-- I thought the quote does NOT refer to this.  
},  
filter: { ... }, \<-- I though the quote refers to this  
facet: { ... }  
}

Am I wrong about that?

Alas, even re-working my query to be a serious of clauses in a bool  
query with NO filters didn't do the trick. Regardless, answers to the  
above probably would help me understand what direction I should take on  
this any other queries.

-Paul  
On 11/5/2012 5:22 PM, P. Hill wrote:

> On 11/5/2012 12:38 PM, Igor Motov wrote:
> 
> > Could you take a look at this example [https://groups.google.com/d/topic/elasticsearch/\_cGG9F4Wwdc/discussion · GitHub](https://gist.github.com/4020172)  
> > and modify the output so it meets your requirements?  
> > I will take a look at that sometime soon! Thanks, -Paul

--

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Igor\_Motov](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/igor_motov/32/45193_2.png) [@Igor\_Motov](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Igor_Motov)\
**Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 1:25pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/facet-on-nested-objects-filtered-by-outer-object/9553/7 "2012-11-07T13:25:00Z")

</div>

Yeah I see your point now. The sample that I posted is not a proper  
solution for this issue. I will try to come up with a better solution  
shortly.

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 2:17:54 PM UTC-5, P Hill wrote:

> Thank you for taking the time to start a gist on this.
> 
> I have been trying to work out why I can't build a query against my data  
> very much "like" yours and get the match parent AND match nested  
> behavior that your example does.  
> Obviously, it is not as much "like" yours as I think it is. 🙂  
> I have yet to modify yours to include too much as you my query does, but  
> I will keep trying.
> 
> My 1st question is:  
> Where is it defined that a scope can be defined on a subquery?  
> I thought scopes where about saving a filter result? Am I getting scope  
> confused with caching?
> 
> I am also not sure I have a users model of how your query works
> 
> When I write a  
> query: { bool: { must: [ { } , { , scope: "my\_scope" }  
> ] } }  
> I thought it was doing something like:
> 
> (1) INNER\_JOIN( queryA(), queryB() )  
> That is, it the results of running queryA and separately (without  
> consideration of queryA) the results of running queryB are generated.  
> Only then are the two result sets joined together.
> 
> Thus I couldn't figure out how declaring a scope for queryB would  
> include queryA and thus why I was scratching my head about the  
> usefulness of a nested query scope,  
> but your working example suggests that it is more like.
> 
> (2) queryB(queryA())  
> queryB is applied using the documents returned by the results of  
> queryA(), thus the results at the end of queryB is by both queryA and  
> queryB, as you demonstrate.
> 
> Is (2) what is really going on or is there another model of how it works?
> 
> * * *
> 
> Re-reading the facets page again, I spotted another place that I was  
> making an assumption related to scope.  
> [Elasticsearch Platform — Find real-time answers at scale | Elastic](http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/reference/api/search/facets/index.html)  
> "There�s one _important distinction_ to keep in mind. While search  
> /queries/ restrict both the returned documents and facet counts, search  
> /filters/ restrict only returned documents � but /not/ facet counts."  
> I was assuming that the term "search filters" is the final filter listed  
> directly within the "search" struct, not any filter mentioned within a  
> some filtered query (or other query that includes a filter).  
> For example,  
> search {  
> query: {  
> filtered: {  
> query: { ... },  
> filter: { ... } \<-- I thought the quote does NOT refer to this.  
> },  
> filter: { ... }, \<-- I though the quote refers to this  
> facet: { ... }  
> }
> 
> Am I wrong about that?
> 
> Alas, even re-working my query to be a serious of clauses in a bool  
> query with NO filters didn't do the trick. Regardless, answers to the  
> above probably would help me understand what direction I should take on  
> this any other queries.
> 
> -Paul  
> On 11/5/2012 5:22 PM, P. Hill wrote:
> 
> > On 11/5/2012 12:38 PM, Igor Motov wrote:
> > 
> > > Could you take a look at this example [https://groups.google.com/d/topic/elasticsearch/\_cGG9F4Wwdc/discussion · GitHub](https://gist.github.com/4020172)  
> > > and modify the output so it meets your requirements?  
> > > I will take a look at that sometime soon! Thanks, -Paul

--

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![phill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@phill](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/phill)\
**Post date:** [November 8, 2012, 2:13am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/facet-on-nested-objects-filtered-by-outer-object/9553/8 "2012-11-08T02:13:21Z")

</div>

On 11/7/2012 5:25 AM, Igor Motov wrote:

> Yeah I see your point now. The sample that I posted is not a proper  
> solution for this issue. I will try to come up with a better solution  
> shortly.

I'm still interested in understanding where a scope comes from, and  
understanding the quote from the facets page, but I was able to solve my  
problem using  
(1) no filters, and  
(2) avoiding "terms" query, because I seem to have some  
mis-understanding about what it should do (or maybe even it has a bug).

See a complete discussion and working REST examples at:

> <https://gist.github.com/P-Hill/4035647>
>
> There are more than three files. show original

Thanks to Igor for the 1st cut at an example, it was very close to what  
I needed.

-Paul

--

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Igor\_Motov](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/igor_motov/32/45193_2.png) [@Igor\_Motov](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Igor_Motov)\
**Post date:** [November 8, 2012, 3:24am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/facet-on-nested-objects-filtered-by-outer-object/9553/9 "2012-11-08T03:24:58Z")

</div>

To better understand the quote from the facets page, imagine for a second  
all documents in your index, this is the "global" scope. Now, execute  
"query" portion of your request against all these documents. You will get a  
subset of your index that satisfies your query. This is the "main" scope  
and these are the documents that facets are calculated against. Now apply  
"filter" portion of you request to this subset, you will get another subset  
that satisfies both filter and query portions of your requests. This is  
your hits. The number of documents in this subset will be returned in  
"total" and top 10 (or whatever number you specified in the "size" field)  
documents will be returned in the "hits" object. By "filter" portion, I  
mean top level filter object, not the filters that can appear inside query  
as part of filtered\_query. Does this make sense?

This morning I was also trying to expand this explanation to include scope  
of nested facets, but I think I stumbled upon a bug. So, I am still trying  
to figure what the correct behavior should be. Basically, the results that  
your are going to see in the nested facets depend on the order of execution  
of subqueries within the parent query, which doesn't seem right. It might  
be easier to show it using an example:  
[nested\_order.sh · GitHub](https://gist.github.com/c505e3ce1f535d700f37) Maybe this was the reason why  
your complex query didn't work.

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:12:55 PM UTC-5, P Hill wrote:

> On 11/7/2012 5:25 AM, Igor Motov wrote:
> 
> > Yeah I see your point now. The sample that I posted is not a proper  
> > solution for this issue. I will try to come up with a better solution  
> > shortly.
> 
> I'm still interested in understanding where a scope comes from, and  
> understanding the quote from the facets page, but I was able to solve my  
> problem using  
> (1) no filters, and  
> (2) avoiding "terms" query, because I seem to have some  
> mis-understanding about what it should do (or maybe even it has a bug).
> 
> See a complete discussion and working REST examples at:  
> [https://groups.google.com/d/topic/elasticsearch/\_cGG9F4Wwdc/discussion · GitHub](https://gist.github.com/4035647)
> 
> Thanks to Igor for the 1st cut at an example, it was very close to what  
> I needed.
> 
> -Paul

--

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![phill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@phill](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/phill)\
**Post date:** [November 8, 2012, 6:48am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/facet-on-nested-objects-filtered-by-outer-object/9553/10 "2012-11-08T06:48:12Z")

</div>

On 11/7/2012 7:24 PM, Igor Motov wrote:

> Basically, the results that your are going to see in the nested facets  
> depend on the order of execution of subqueries within the parent  
> query, which doesn't seem right. It might be easier to show it using  
> an example: [nested\_order.sh · GitHub](https://gist.github.com/c505e3ce1f535d700f37) Maybe this  
> was the reason why your complex query didn't work.

The scope of the subquery is the result of applying the nested query to  
the set of all nested objects from all subqueries on the parent which  
makes perfect sense, if it is long chain on applying one function upon  
another  
nestedScope = a set of some nested types =  
aNestedQuery(parentSubQs(allDocuments))

As you said, but it doesn't explain how a series of the "must"s and  
"should"s would combine to make parents used to find the nested items.

One answer is to apply all parent Q's then use that as a set of parents  
to find a set of nested objects, then using the results of the nested  
and save that as a scope. But then what does it mean if two of  
sub-queries in a parent query refer to two different nested objects  
since each nested query can contribute to scoring and boolean matching?

At that point it may be the only choice to take the parts of a query in  
order as found, stopping to retain any declared scope of nested IDs  
resulting from a nested Q.

Thinking through this and assuming order does matter gives me ideas to  
look back at what I had and see if it was order dependent. Thanks for  
that thought.

-Paul

--

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 3:05am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/facet-on-nested-objects-filtered-by-outer-object/9553/11 "2017-07-06T03:05:30Z")

</div>