# Type or field **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 5:16pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/type-or-field/8064 "2012-06-12T17:16:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![arta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/aca169/32.png) [@arta](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/arta)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 5:16pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/type-or-field/8064/1 "2012-06-12T17:16:46Z")
Hi, I have only one document type (only one mapping). The documents are grouped, for example, by zip code. And our searches are always bound within a group, for example only for 94040. We do not search on multiple groups. In this situation, which design is better?: 1. have the zip code as a type, so that we can search only for that zip code by issueing search query "[http://localhost:9200/](http://localhost:9200/)/94040/\_search" ... 2. have the zip code as a field, then filter by the field "[http://localhost:9200/](http://localhost:9200/)//\_search" -d '{ "query":{"filtered":{"query":{..},"filter":{"term":{"zip":94040}}}}}' Thank you for your help. ---
**Author:** ![Ivan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/df788c/32.png) [@Ivan](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Ivan)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/type-or-field/8064/2 "2012-06-12T19:51:14Z")
I do not think there is a difference in performance. Mappings are defined by type, so it would be easier to maintain a mapping against a fixed type and not need a dynamic mapping across all types in an index, IMHO. On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:16 AM, arta [artasano@sbcglobal.net](mailto:artasano@sbcglobal.net) wrote: > Hi, > I have only one document type (only one mapping). > The documents are grouped, for example, by zip code. > And our searches are always bound within a group, for example only for > 94040. > We do not search on multiple groups. > In this situation, which design is better?: > > 1. have the zip code as a type, so that we can search only for that zip code > by issueing search query > "[http://localhost:9200/](http://localhost:9200/)/94040/\_search" ... > 2. have the zip code as a field, then filter by the field > "[http://localhost:9200/](http://localhost:9200/)//\_search" -d '{ > "query":{"filtered":{"query":{..},"filter":{"term":{"zip":94040}}}}}' > > Thank you for your help. > > -- > View this message in context: [http://elasticsearch-users.115913.n3.nabble.com/type-or-field-tp4019143.html](http://elasticsearch-users.115913.n3.nabble.com/type-or-field-tp4019143.html) > Sent from the Elasticsearch Users mailing list archive at [Nabble.com](http://Nabble.com). ---
**Author:** ![arta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/aca169/32.png) [@arta](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/arta)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/type-or-field/8064/3 "2012-06-13T16:50:38Z")
Thank you Ivan, Good to know there isn't much difference. Here'are my concerns: 1. have the zip code as a type, so that we can search only for that zip code by specifying 'type' Pros: - easy to construct query, as no explicit filter clause is necessary - no need to have 'zip\_code' field. so presumably saving disk space? - type handling is a built-in feature of ES, so presumably faster processing than query filter? Cons: - I guess, _default_ mapping is copied for each type when a type is added, so more memory consumption? 1. have the zip code as a field, then apply a filter by the field Pros and cons opposite to 1) In general, I'd like to know the difference in terms of, disk-usage, memory-consumption and search-speed. Thanks, again, for your help. ---
**Author:** ![kimchy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/kimchy/32/44952_2.png) [@kimchy](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/kimchy)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 9:40pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/type-or-field/8064/4 "2012-06-14T21:40:57Z")
There isn't a difference in terms of perf or disk store, a type is actually stored as another field in a doc. You will create multiple mappings in this case for each zip, which is a waste in terms of storing the cluster state. So, use a field and filter by it. On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:50 PM, arta [artasano@sbcglobal.net](mailto:artasano@sbcglobal.net) wrote: > Thank you Ivan, > Good to know there isn't much difference. > > Here'are my concerns: > > 1. have the zip code as a type, so that we can search only for that zip > code > by specifying 'type' > Pros: > > - easy to construct query, as no explicit filter clause is necessary > - no need to have 'zip\_code' field. so presumably saving disk space? > - type handling is a built-in feature of ES, so presumably faster > processing than query filter? > Cons: > - I guess, _default_ mapping is copied for each type when a type is added, > so more memory consumption? > > 1. have the zip code as a field, then apply a filter by the field > Pros and cons opposite to 1) > > In general, I'd like to know the difference in terms of, disk-usage, > memory-consumption and search-speed. > Thanks, again, for your help. > > -- > View this message in context: > [http://elasticsearch-users.115913.n3.nabble.com/type-or-field-tp4019143p4019220.html](http://elasticsearch-users.115913.n3.nabble.com/type-or-field-tp4019143p4019220.html) > Sent from the Elasticsearch Users mailing list archive at [Nabble.com](http://Nabble.com). ---
**Author:** ![arta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/aca169/32.png) [@arta](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/arta)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 3:35am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/type-or-field/8064/5 "2012-06-19T03:35:25Z")
Thank you, kimchy. ---
**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, 3:23am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/type-or-field/8064/6 "2017-07-06T03:23:31Z")
Closed on July 6, 2017, 3:23am UTC