-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Elasticsearch] Convert two nested fields with the same path under same bool.must condition #268
Comments
As noted in the mails we exchanged:
|
@dkarlovi has_child seems to be working but it is not an option for me at the moment. As soon as I have time I'll take a look on grouping of nested type. |
@jkabat I didn't mean you should change your query to |
…bat) This PR was merged into the 2.0-dev branch. Discussion ---------- | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Bug fix? | yes | New feature? | no | BC breaks? | no | Deprecations? | no | Tests pass? | no | Fixed tickets | #268 | License | MIT | Doc PR | Follow up to #268 Current implementation merges only single level nested fields (eg: author[].first_name, author[].last_name), not multiple level ones (item[].author[].name...). @dkarlovi Any thoughts how this can be solved? Merging is not working for HAS_CHILD queries with multiple levels as well. As this PR solves my current requirement I'm fine with single level fix, but I agree that complete solution is preferred. Unit test covering multiple level nesting case is included but failing... can be removed later. Commits ------- 1cf8cd9 bug #268 fix: merge single level nested queries with the same path
I'm trying to convert following string input to ES query and is very possible that this is not supported yet, however you might have an idea how to use RS to get it done.
String input:
Fieldset definition:
Query snippet:
Would be possible to create one nested condition with queries inside bool? Something like:
Unfortunately documentation is incomplete but there may exist a way to do a conversion by custom field, value+query transformer or simply by change of mapping in fieldset definition.
Is there something I may have missed?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: