If the union of the documents that match all your filters is much smaller
than your whole dataset then it would indeed help to run separate queries
(potentially in a multi search call).
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 6:22 PM, mooky wrote:
> Mind you, I only have 10's of thousands of documents I am agg
Mind you, I only have 10's of thousands of documents I am aggregating
over... maybe the perf difference is negligible?
On Wednesday, 18 June 2014 17:21:26 UTC+1, mooky wrote:
>
> Hm, Interesting.
> I currently make one request that performs multiple aggregations. All my
> aggregations have a fi
Hm, Interesting.
I currently make one request that performs multiple aggregations. All my
aggregations have a filter aggregation as the top level item (all are
different).
Do you think it would be better performance executing multiple requests
with a filterQuery instead?
On Wednesday, 18 June
Indeed SearchType.COUNT would work great as it would ensure that a single
round-trip is performed. Other than that, if you want to filter content on
which you want to aggregate, make sure to put it in a filtered query as
opposed to a filter aggregation: since aggregations are executed on every
matc
I have an elastic request that only performs aggregations.
Other than setting size=0, are there other optimisations worth making?
SearchType.COUNT ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"elasticsearch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiv
