Quick update, I found that if I explicitly set _cache to true, things seem to work more as expected, i.e. subsequent executions of the query sped up. I looked at DateFieldMapper.rangeFilter() and to me it looks like if a number is passed, caching will be disabled unless it's explicitly set to true. Not sure if this has been fixed in 1.3.x yet or not. This meshes with my observed behavior.
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 8:59:37 AM UTC-7, Kireet Reddy wrote: > > Thanks for the detailed reply. > > I am a bit confused about and vs bool filter execution. I read this post > <http://www.elasticsearch.org/blog/all-about-elasticsearch-filter-bitsets/> > on > the elasticsearch blog. From that, I thought the bool filter would work by > basically creating a bitset for the entire segment(s) being examined. If > the filter value changes every time, will this still be cheaper than an AND > filter that will just examine the matching docs? My segments can be very > big and this query for example on matched one document. > > There is no match_all query filter, There is a "match" query filter on a > field named "all". :) > > Based on your feedback, I moved all filters, including the query filter, > into the bool filter. However it didn't change things: the query takes an > order of magnitude slower with the range filter, unless I set execution to > fielddata. I am using 1.2.2, I tried the strategy anyways and it didn't > make a difference. > > { > "query": { > "filtered": { > "query": { > "match_all": {} > }, > "filter": { > "bool": { > "must": [ > { > "terms": { > "source_id": ["s1", "s2", "s3"] > } > }, > { > "query": { > "match": { > "all": { > "query": "foo" > } > } > } > }, > { > "range": { > "published": { > "to": 1406064191883 > } > } > } > ] > } > } > } > }, > "sort": [ > { > "crawlDate": { > "order": "desc" > } > } > ] > } > > On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:30:10 AM UTC-7, Clinton Gormley wrote: >> >> Don't use the `and` filter - use the `bool` filter instead. They have >> different execution modes and the `bool` filter works best with bitset >> filters (but also knows how to handle non-bitset filters like geo etc). >> >> Just remove the `and`, `or` and `not` filters from your DSL vocabulary. >> >> Also, not sure why you are ANDing with a match_all filter - that doesn't >> make much sense. >> >> Depending on which version of ES you're using, you may be encountering a >> bug in the filtered query which ended up always running the query first, >> instead of the filter. This was fixed in v1.2.0 >> https://github.com/elasticsearch/elasticsearch/issues/6247 . If you are >> on an earlier version you can force filter-first execution manually by >> specifying a "strategy" of "random_access_100". See >> http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/query-dsl-filtered-query.html#_filter_strategy >> >> In summary, (and taking your less granular datetime clause into account) >> your query would be better written as: >> >> GET /_search >> { >> "query": { >> "filtered": { >> "strategy": "random_access_100", #### pre 1.2 only >> "filter": { >> "bool": { >> "must": [ >> { >> "terms": { >> "source_id": [ "s1", "s2", "s3" ] >> } >> }, >> { >> "range": { >> "published": { >> "gte": "now-1d/d" #### coarse grained, cached >> } >> } >> }, >> { >> "range": { >> "published": { >> "gte": "now-30m" #### fine grained, not cached, >> could use fielddata too >> }, >> "_cache": false >> } >> } >> ] >> } >> } >> } >> } >> } >> >> >> >> >> >> On 30 July 2014 10:55, David Pilato <da...@pilato.fr> wrote: >> >>> May be a stupid question: why did you put that filter inside a query and >>> not within the same filter you have at the end? >>> >>> >>> For my test case it's the same every time. In the "real" query it will >>>> change every time, but I planned to not cache this filter and have a less >>>> granular date filter in the bool filter that would be cached. However >>>> while >>>> debugging I noticed slowness with the date range filters even while >>>> testing >>>> with the same value repeatedly. >>>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "elasticsearch" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to elasticsearc...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/af76ca41-9045-4a4f-b82c-b9c86d964ace%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/af76ca41-9045-4a4f-b82c-b9c86d964ace%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elasticsearch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/d8f8347e-57c3-4e1e-9a71-b6d9ccc7068a%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
