Is it possible to use script fields to add a field to the returned doc
based on which filter matched it in the first place? For example, in
my situation I have something like:
Is it possible to use script fields to add a field to the returned doc
based on which filter matched it in the first place? For example, in
my situation I have something like:
mmm, interesting feature. You can't currently do it, but I think I have an
idea of how it can be done. You will need to be able to "name" your filters,
and then, when searching, you can say that for each hit, return all the
named filters it matches. Sounds good?
That sounds great. I assume that I would be able to name only some of
the filters? Also, would I be able to control the name of the field
that will contain matched filters?
mmm, interesting feature. You can't currently do it, but I think I have an
idea of how it can be done. You will need to be able to "name" your filters,
and then, when searching, you can say that for each hit, return all the
named filters it matches. Sounds good?
Yea, you will only get back filters that you actually named when you defined
them in the search DSL. I was thinking that the name of the field will
always be the same, something like: "matched_filters" : ["filter1",
"filter3].
That sounds great. I assume that I would be able to name only some of
the filters? Also, would I be able to control the name of the field
that will contain matched filters?
mmm, interesting feature. You can't currently do it, but I think I have
an
idea of how it can be done. You will need to be able to "name" your
filters,
and then, when searching, you can say that for each hit, return all the
named filters it matches. Sounds good?
Yea, you will only get back filters that you actually named when you defined
them in the search DSL. I was thinking that the name of the field will
always be the same, something like: "matched_filters" : ["filter1",
"filter3].
yea, giving the option to name the field as well I think it going too far.
Care to open an issue since all of this needs to be implemented at one point
Yea, you will only get back filters that you actually named when you
defined
them in the search DSL. I was thinking that the name of the field will
always be the same, something like: "matched_filters" : ["filter1",
"filter3].
yea, giving the option to name the field as well I think it going too far.
Care to open an issue since all of this needs to be implemented at one point
Yea, you will only get back filters that you actually named when you
defined
them in the search DSL. I was thinking that the name of the field will
always be the same, something like: "matched_filters" : ["filter1",
"filter3].
yea, giving the option to name the field as well I think it going too far.
Care to open an issue since all of this needs to be implemented at one point
Yea, you will only get back filters that you actually named when you
defined
them in the search DSL. I was thinking that the name of the field will
always be the same, something like: "matched_filters" : ["filter1",
"filter3].
Apache, Apache Lucene, Apache Hadoop, Hadoop, HDFS and the yellow elephant
logo are trademarks of the
Apache Software Foundation
in the United States and/or other countries.