My instincts says this is not the proper use of aggregation but want to check w/ people who have actually used it. We want to bucket on a very high cardinality field and return **ALL** buckets (no size limit). For example, imagine documents representing people and their parents:
person - parent =========== john - cindy james - cindy tony - mark tim - doug I want to bucket by parent, so it'll be cindy - john - james mark - tony doug - tim This is a high cardinality field, so already it concerns me. I want all buckets (setting size to zero). So if I have 10,000 documents I have 5,000 parent buckets and I want all 5,000 of these parent buckets. Essentially I'm trying to display by parent (group by parent). Moreover, I want to sort the parent's age (so imagine the parent has an age it it). Or maybe I want to sort by the average person (child) age in each bucket. So w/ aggregation this seems possible: bucket by parent, sort by average age of person, bucket by person (to get all people for a parent bucket), set size to zero. But it feels very wrong to me, both in terms of the potential performance issues around unlimited, high cardinality buckets and the sorting of those buckets; and that aggregration/bucketing wasn't designed for this. Any input/feedback would be appreciated. -T -- 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/ea6665a1-6562-456c-a806-937fd9f15463%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
