# Synonym Problem **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [February 10, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/synonym-problem/74695 "2017-02-10T18:04:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![RobBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@RobBob](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/RobBob)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/synonym-problem/74695/1 "2017-02-10T18:04:23Z")
Hello, I am running into an issue with a synonym pair I have set up. I have the synonyms, "bar,pub" and while returning results from about 3000 different categories one of the two will not appear given a direct search query. Below are example results for each query: [![](http://i.imgur.com/6L9uyP5.png) ](http://i.imgur.com/6L9uyP5.png)[![](http://i.imgur.com/y93gTLj.png) ](http://i.imgur.com/y93gTLj.png) And here is my current configuration. Any suggestions on what I could do to make sure bar will appear in the first 10 results and pub would return in the first 10 results when queried for? ``` curl -XPUT http://localhost:9200/categories -d '{ "settings": { "analysis": { "filter": { "edge_ngram_filter": { "type": "edge_ngram", "min_gram": 1, "max_gram": 20 }, "category_synonym_filter": { "type": "synonym", "synonyms": ["bike,bicycle", "bar,pub", "shop,store", "burger,hamburger", "bbq,barbecue", "isp,internet service provider", "exterminator,pest control service", "adult entertainment club,strip club"] } }, "analyzer": { "edge_ngram_analyzer": { "type": "custom", "tokenizer": "standard", "filter": [ "lowercase", "asciifolding", "edge_ngram_filter" ] }, "search_analyzer": { "type": "custom", "tokenizer": "standard", "filter": [ "lowercase", "asciifolding", "category_synonym_filter" ] } } } }, "mappings": { "category": { "properties": { "category_description": { "type": "string", "analyzer": "edge_ngram_analyzer", "search_analyzer": "search_analyzer" }, "type" : { "type" : "string", "index" : "not_analyzed" } } } } }' ``` Thank you for any help in advance! ---
**Author:** ![RobBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@RobBob](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/RobBob)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/synonym-problem/74695/2 "2017-02-12T19:13:59Z")
Is there any more information I can provide that would help someone guide me in the right direction? Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Harwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/mark_harwood/32/10538_2.png) [@Mark\_Harwood](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Mark_Harwood)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2017, 10:00am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/synonym-problem/74695/3 "2017-02-13T10:00:32Z")
A user's search input does not have to be modelled as a single query clause. Often it's beneficial to try several different interpretations of their input in a single search request using an array of queries in the `should` clause of a containing `bool` query. The more clauses that match a should array, the better the score. You could try (in reverse order of importance): 1. An exact-match phrase query on full-words 2. An exact match query on full words 3. An partial match query using n-grams. Currently you are are only doing 3). If you also index minus the n-grams you can do 2) as well and give an extra boost to a match on that query using the `boost` parameter. If someone search for `irish bar` then 1) would help rank matches better too. ---
**Author:** ![RobBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@RobBob](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/RobBob)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2017, 11:24pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/synonym-problem/74695/4 "2017-02-13T23:24:08Z")
Hello! Thank you for the reply 🙂 Okay, I believe I see what you are saying about using several should clauses instead of one must. Right now my current query looks like this: ``` {size=100, query={ bool={ must=[{ match={ category_description={ fuzziness=AUTO, query=bar, operator=and } } }, { term={type=BUSINESS} }] } }, from=0} ``` So instead of the one must I should have several shoulds. Something like this? ``` {size=100, query={ bool={ should=[{ match_phrase={ category_description=bar }, term={ category_description=bar }, match={ category_description={ fuzziness=AUTO, query=bar, operator=and } } }, { term={type=BUSINESS} }] } }, from=0} ``` What do you mean when you say, "also index minus n-grams"? Thank you again for the reply! ---
**Author:** ![RobBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@RobBob](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/RobBob)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2017, 12:47am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/synonym-problem/74695/5 "2017-02-14T00:47:18Z")
So my latest query looks like this: ``` {size=100, query={ bool={ should=[ {match_phrase={category_description=bar}}, {term={category_description=bar}}, {match={category_description={fuzziness=AUTO, query=bar, operator=and}} }], must=[{term={type=BUSINESS}}]} }, from=0} ``` And it has definitely solved my problem. I am still testing the other queries to make sure they are behaving properly but it sure looks like it! If you had a minute to look over my changes to confirm I understood you that would be fantastic. And as I mentioned before, I wasn't quite sure what you mean by minus the n-grams. Thanks again! ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Harwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/mark_harwood/32/10538_2.png) [@Mark\_Harwood](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Mark_Harwood)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2017, 8:57am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/synonym-problem/74695/6 "2017-02-14T08:57:15Z")
> [@RobBob](#): > > I wasn't quite sure what you mean by minus the n-grams. You can index the one source field in multiple different ways e.g. With an edge ngram based analyzer and also with a standard analyzer. They end up as 2 different named fields in the search index. See [fields | Elasticsearch Guide [8.11] | Elastic](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/multi-fields.html) ---
**Author:** ![RobBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@RobBob](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/RobBob)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2017, 4:40pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/synonym-problem/74695/7 "2017-02-14T16:40:38Z")
Ahh okay I see. And you had mentioned I use the standard analyzed field for 1) and 2)? ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Harwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/mark_harwood/32/10538_2.png) [@Mark\_Harwood](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Mark_Harwood)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2017, 4:45pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/synonym-problem/74695/8 "2017-02-14T16:45:02Z")
> [@RobBob](#): > > I use the standard analyzed field for 1) and 2)? That would make sense. I was illustrating a general pattern of using a range of matching methods (exact through to partial) where each can be given different levels of boost. Ultimately it's up to you how much disk space/CPU/disk-seeks you want to throw at the matching problem with all these different approaches. ---
**Author:** ![RobBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@RobBob](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/RobBob)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2017, 5:20pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/synonym-problem/74695/9 "2017-02-14T17:20:01Z")
Okay, thank you for all your help. You have definitely enlightened me to the options I have though they seem more obvious now. I don't know how I missed this line of thought but I appreciate your help! Thank you 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2017, 5:20pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/synonym-problem/74695/10 "2017-03-14T17:20:07Z")
This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.