# Query string query ngrams and wildcards or fuzziness or proximity searches **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [November 22, 2017, 6:42am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/query-string-query-ngrams-and-wildcards-or-fuzziness-or-proximity-searches/108650 "2017-11-22T06:42:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![adyjayex](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/adyjayex/32/15748_2.png) [@adyjayex](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/adyjayex)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 6:42am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/query-string-query-ngrams-and-wildcards-or-fuzziness-or-proximity-searches/108650/1 "2017-11-22T06:42:03Z")
Hello, GIven the following analysis settings: ``` "analysis": { "tokenizer": { "ngram_tokenizer": { "type": "ngram", "min_gram": 3, "max_gram": 3, "token_chars": [] } }, "analyzer": { "ngram_analyzer": { "type": "custom", "tokenizer": "ngram_tokenizer", "filter": [ "lowercase", "asciifolding" ] } } } }, ``` And fields which are based on this dynamic template: ``` "dynamic_templates": [ { "strings": { "match_mapping_type": "string", "mapping": { "type": "text", "analyzer": "ngram_analyzer", "search_analyzer": "ngram_analyzer", "norms": false, "fields": { "keyword": { "store": false, "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 } } } } } ], ``` When searching for **ease** the search analyzer creates 3-size tokens (eas, ase) and returns any document which contains them, however, when using **"ease"** or **" ease "** it retrieves relevant results with words which either contain **ease** (please, lease...) or phrases which contain the word **ease** separated by whitespaces. My question is, is it in any way possible to combine **Single character wildcard** , **Fuziness** or **Proximity Search** when using either **"ease"** or **" ease "** (i.e. **"ea?e"** or **"eaes"~** to find **ease** ) ? Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![dadoonet](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/dadoonet/32/137187_2.png) [@dadoonet](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/dadoonet)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 7:05am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/query-string-query-ngrams-and-wildcards-or-fuzziness-or-proximity-searches/108650/2 "2017-11-22T07:05:29Z")
You can run a match query with `"fuziness": "AUTO"` and that should work. Did you try? ---
**Author:** ![adyjayex](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/adyjayex/32/15748_2.png) [@adyjayex](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/adyjayex)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 7:18am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/query-string-query-ngrams-and-wildcards-or-fuzziness-or-proximity-searches/108650/3 "2017-11-22T07:18:24Z")
Not yet, however, apart from fuzziness, is it possible to replicate the other features available in Query String Query with Match Query ? Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![dadoonet](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/dadoonet/32/137187_2.png) [@dadoonet](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/dadoonet)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 8:28am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/query-string-query-ngrams-and-wildcards-or-fuzziness-or-proximity-searches/108650/4 "2017-11-22T08:28:04Z")
You have much more control IMO when using `match` queries or `bool` or `whatever` than with the `query_string`. ---
**Author:** ![adyjayex](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/adyjayex/32/15748_2.png) [@adyjayex](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/adyjayex)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 2:02pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/query-string-query-ngrams-and-wildcards-or-fuzziness-or-proximity-searches/108650/5 "2017-11-22T14:02:28Z")
I've stumbled upon this in the documentation > **Comparison to query\_string / field** > The match family of queries does not go through a "query parsing" process. It does not support field name prefixes, wildcard characters, or other "advanced" features. For this reason, chances of it failing are very small / non existent, and it provides an excellent behavior when it comes to just analyze and run that text as a query behavior (which is usually what a text search box does). Also, the phrase\_prefix type can provide a great "as you type" behavior to automatically load search results. It seems like we'd have to build our own parser on top of the `match` queries to be able to expose the number of features the `query_string` queries offer to an end user. For running only match queries it probably does a better job, but for offering various ways of querying data without essentially rewriting a query parser on top of the query to provide various use cases which `query_string` provide, it doesn't seem to provide much. Or maybe I didn't fully understand your suggestion ? Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![dadoonet](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/dadoonet/32/137187_2.png) [@dadoonet](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/dadoonet)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 5:08pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/query-string-query-ngrams-and-wildcards-or-fuzziness-or-proximity-searches/108650/6 "2017-11-24T17:08:41Z")
I understand. IMO "normal" users should never have to think about this. As an example I'm never ever writing a query like `field:value foo~ b?r` in Google or Qwant when I'm searching for something. It's counterintuitive. What I'm expecting is that the search engine does its best to find the most relevant information for me even though I'm doing mistakes. So I'm often combining multiple queries within a `should` array of the `bool` query. For example, this gist shows something like this: > But may be you really want to give that power to your users. In which case, I'd prefer `simple_query_string` query instead (if possible). Now to answer to your original question, I don't know if it's doable. I did not test something like `field:f?o`. Did you? ---
**Author:** ![adyjayex](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/adyjayex/32/15748_2.png) [@adyjayex](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/adyjayex)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2017, 4:51am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/query-string-query-ngrams-and-wildcards-or-fuzziness-or-proximity-searches/108650/7 "2017-11-25T04:51:44Z")
Thank you for the gist! While I agree with you that a normal user might be more comfortable with easy searches, in specific scenarios where you're looking for more complex content which you can't account for using synonym filters for example, it's very handy to have them. Even Google [provides such features](http://motto.time.com/4116259/google-search/). As for `field:f?o` - yes, using a whitespace analyzer gives the ability to use most (if not all) of the features that `Query String Querying` provides. One possible way of implementing this seems to be using one analyzer on the original field, and another analyzer with a search\_quote\_analyzer on a subfield, which seems to be working reliably on ES6.0. Only concern is if it's the optimum implementation or it could have been done solely with a ngram tokenizer (although our tests showed that it did not work as expected with the Query String Query syntax) ---
**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 4:52am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/query-string-query-ngrams-and-wildcards-or-fuzziness-or-proximity-searches/108650/8 "2017-12-23T04:52:02Z")
This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.