Allow _boost field to be indexed and stored in mapping #3752
Comments
ghost
assigned 
|
has this feature been removed for 0.90.10? (I thought it might, since the _boost field is deprecated in 1.X). I have {
"_boost": {
"type": "float",
"index": "not_analyzed"
}
}in my mappings definition and, besides not getting any info on "_boost" field when I access _mapping entrypoint (which I guess is due to the _boost field being "special"), can't get ES to sort by it. |
|
Hi @JoeZ99 , the document boost wasn't removed for now, just deprecated in the documentation. |
|
there seems to be a bug or at least, unexpected behavior with this. here's how to reproduce it create an index with a _boost mapping POST http://localhost:9200/tito{
"mappings":{
"type1":{
"_boost": {"name": "df_boost", "null_value": 1.0, "index": "not_analyzed"},
"properties": {
"extra_field": {"type": "double"}
}
}
}
}an exception is raised in elasticsearch [2014-02-24 09:32:03,365][WARN ][indices.cluster ] [Master Khan] [tito] failed to add mapping [type1], source [{"type1":{"_boost":{"name":"df_boost","null_value":1.0,"index":true},"properties":{"extra_field":{"type":"double"}}}}]
org.elasticsearch.index.mapper.MapperParsingException: Wrong value for index [true] for field [df_boost]
at org.elasticsearch.index.mapper.core.TypeParsers.parseIndex(TypeParsers.java:194)
at org.elasticsearch.index.mapper.core.TypeParsers.parseField(TypeParsers.java:76)
at org.elasticsearch.index.mapper.core.TypeParsers.parseNumberField(TypeParsers.java:51)
at org.elasticsearch.index.mapper.internal.BoostFieldMapper$TypeParser.parse(BoostFieldMapper.java:99)
at org.elasticsearch.index.mapper.DocumentMapperParser.parse(DocumentMapperParser.java:235)
at org.elasticsearch.index.mapper.DocumentMapperParser.parseCompressed(DocumentMapperParser.java:183)
at org.elasticsearch.index.mapper.MapperService.parse(MapperService.java:322)
at org.elasticsearch.index.mapper.MapperService.merge(MapperService.java:200)
at org.elasticsearch.indices.cluster.IndicesClusterStateService.processMapping(IndicesClusterStateService.java:405)
at org.elasticsearch.indices.cluster.IndicesClusterStateService.applyMappings(IndicesClusterStateService.java:360)
at org.elasticsearch.indices.cluster.IndicesClusterStateService.clusterChanged(IndicesClusterStateService.java:179)
at org.elasticsearch.cluster.service.InternalClusterService$UpdateTask.run(InternalClusterService.java:416)
at org.elasticsearch.common.util.concurrent.PrioritizedEsThreadPoolExecutor$TieBreakingPrioritizedRunnable.run(PrioritizedEsThreadPoolExecutor.java:135)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1146)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:679)the exception is about the However, the mapping is done GET http://localhost:9200/tito/_mapping{
"tito": {
"type1": {
"properties": {
"df_boost": {
"type": "long"
},
"field": {
"type": "string"
}
}
}
}
}and sorting by boost is possible! GET http://localhost:9200/tito/_search
{
"query": {"match_all": {} },
"sort": ['df_boost"]
}{
"took": 4,
"timed_out": false,
"_shards": {
"total": 5,
"successful": 5,
"failed": 0
},
"hits": {
"total": 1,
"max_score": null,
"hits": [
{
"_index": "tito",
"_type": "type1",
"_id": "6r-8C64RSNuPQ1vGPENK6g",
"_score": null,
"_source": {
"field": "value",
"df_boost": 34
},
"sort": [
34
]
}
]
}
}this works whe accessing the REST API , but when using the THe issue/bug is that it throws an exception for no good reason. I'm using elasticasearch 0.9.10 |
The idea of the
_boostfield is that it provides an index time boost for all fields a document has, because of this the_boostfield isn't stored or indexed separately and only saved as part of the_source.However the
_boostfield is also used to as just a sort field, but because it can't be indexed separately, this doesn't work. By allowing to make the_boostindexable separately, sorting by the_boostfield does work. By default the_boostfield remains not indexed and not stored.This issue originates from PR #2913
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: