Skip to main content

ElasticSearch–Should clause

A colleague asked me for help when his ElasticSearch query wasn’t returning the results he expected.

Let me first explain what he tries to achieve using a simplified example:

  • In our search index we have products that are linked to a specific category.
  • We want to search for specific product values AND only return results for the categories we specified
    • In SQL this would translate to a query similar to the following:

‘SELECT * FROM PRODUCTS WHERE (ProductBrand=’Apple’ OR ProductName=’Apple’ ) AND CATEGORY=’Hardware’’ 

Here is the first attempt to write this using NEST:

    We noticed however that instead of executing an AND, we got OR behavior instead. We got all products back where category is ‘Hardware’ but not limited to ‘Apple’ products.

    Why is this happening?

    First important to notice is that the query above does a full text search and is not filter query. Combining multiple clauses with and, or and not logic becomes more subtle. Queries decide not only whether to include a document, but also how relevant that document is.

    ElasticSearch interpretes the query above like this:

    • The must clause says: Please return me all documents where the Category is ‘Hardware’
    • The should clause says: A document is not required to contain ‘Apple’ but if it does, then it should be considered more relevant.

    To fix this, you can either switch to a filter instead of a full text search or specify a minimum_should_match level.

    From the documentation:

    By default, none of the should clauses are required to match, with one exception: if there are no must clauses, then at least one should clause must match.

    Just as we can control the precision of the match query, we can control how many should clauses need to match by using the minimum_should_match parameter, either as an absolute number or as a percentage.

    Wat je eigenlijk wil is dat minstens 1 should clause een resultaat teruggeeft. Dit kan je doen door de "minimum_should_match" instelling te manipuleren:

    Here is the fixed query:

    Popular posts from this blog

    Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

    After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...

    Azure DevOps/ GitHub emoji

    I’m really bad at remembering emoji’s. So here is cheat sheet with all emoji’s that can be used in tools that support the github emoji markdown markup: All credits go to rcaviers who created this list.

    Cache stampede: when our cache turned against us

    While investigating some performance issues, we ran into an ASP.NET Core API that cached a fairly expensive aggregation query for 60 seconds. Under normal load, that was fine: one request rebuilds the cache, everyone else reads from it. Under peak load, dozens of requests would arrive in that same expiry window, all see a cache miss, and all fire the same expensive query in parallel. The database didn't like that. That was the moment when our caching layer stopped helping and started hurting. A burst of requests comes in at the same time, all miss the cache, and all go hammer the database or the downstream API at once. That's a cache stampede . The cache was supposed to protect our backend, and for a few hundred milliseconds it did the opposite. Why this happens IMemoryCache.GetOrCreate (and its async sibling) looks like it protects you, but it doesn't add any locking on its own. Look at the naive version: public async Task<Report> GetReportAsync(string key) ...