# Search\_after performance compared to querying with \_search

**URL:** <https://discuss.elastic.co/t/search-after-performance-compared-to-querying-with-search/291080>\
**Category:** Elasticsearch\
**Created:** [December 6, 2021, 8:24pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/search-after-performance-compared-to-querying-with-search/291080 "2021-12-06T20:24:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Praveen\_Balaji](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/praveen_balaji/32/98441_2.png) [@Praveen\_Balaji](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Praveen_Balaji)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2021, 8:24pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/search-after-performance-compared-to-querying-with-search/291080/1 "2021-12-06T20:24:39Z")

</div>

Our code switches over to `search_after` past a threshold (10\_000). I'm considering switching to using `search_after` always, irrespective of the size. Is there a loss in performance between plain search and `search_after`?

Praveen

---

<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:** [January 3, 2022, 8:25pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/search-after-performance-compared-to-querying-with-search/291080/2 "2022-01-03T20:25:07Z")

</div>

This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.