=== cross-fields Queries
The custom _all
approach is a good solution, as long as you thought
about setting it up before you indexed your((("multifield search", "cross-fields queries")))((("cross-fields queries"))) documents. However, Elasticsearch
also provides a search-time solution to the problem: the multi_match
query
with type cross_fields
.((("multimatch queries", "cross_fields type")))
The cross_fields
type takes a term-centric approach, quite different from the
field-centric approach taken by best_fields
and most_fields
. It treats all
of the fields as one big field, and looks for _each term in any field.
To illustrate the difference between field-centric and term-centric queries,
look at ((("field-centric queries", "differences between term-centric queries and")))((("most fields queries", "explanation for field-centric approach")))the explanation
for this field-centric most_fields
query:
[source,js]
GET /_validate/query?explain { "query": { "multi_match": { "query": "peter smith", "type": "most_fields", "operator": "and", <1> "fields": [ "first_name", "last_name" ] } }
}
// SENSE: 110_Multi_Field_Search/50_Cross_field.json
<1> All terms are required.
For a document to match, both peter
and smith
must appear in the same
field, either the first_name
field or the last_name
field:
(+first_name:peter +first_name:smith)
(+last_name:peter +last_name:smith)
A term-centric approach would use this logic instead:
+(first_name:peter last_name:peter)
+(first_name:smith last_name:smith)
In other words, the term peter
must appear in either field, and the term
smith
must appear in either field.
The cross_fields
type first analyzes the query string to produce a list of
terms, and then it searches for each term in any field. That difference alone
solves two of the three problems that we listed in <
Fortunately, the cross_fields
type solves this too, as can be seen from this
validate-query
request:
[source,js]
GET /_validate/query?explain { "query": { "multi_match": { "query": "peter smith", "type": "cross_fields", <1> "operator": "and", "fields": [ "first_name", "last_name" ] } }
}
// SENSE: 110_Multi_Field_Search/50_Cross_field.json
<1> Use cross_fields
term-centric matching.
It solves the term-frequency problem by blending inverse document frequencies across fields: ((("cross-fields queries", "blending inverse document frequencies across fields")))((("inverse document frequency", "blending across fields in cross-fields queries")))
+blended("peter", fields: [first_name, last_name])
+blended("smith", fields: [first_name, last_name])
In other words, it looks up the IDF of smith
in both the first_name
and
the last_name
fields and uses the minimum of the two as the IDF for both
fields. The fact that smith
is a common last name means that it will be
treated as a common first name too.
[NOTE]
For the cross_fields
query type to work optimally, all fields should have
the same analyzer.((("analyzers", "in cross-fields queries")))((("cross-fields queries", "analyzers in"))) Fields that share an analyzer are grouped together as
blended fields.
If you include fields with a different analysis chain, they will be added to
the query in the same way as for best_fields
. For instance, if we added the
title
field to the preceding query (assuming it uses a different analyzer), the
explanation would be as follows:
(+title:peter +title:smith)
(
+blended("peter", fields: [first_name, last_name])
+blended("smith", fields: [first_name, last_name])
)
This is particularly important when using the minimum_should_match
and
operator
parameters.
==== Per-Field Boosting
One of the advantages of using the cross_fields
query over
<
For fields of equal value like first_name
and last_name
, this generally
isn't required, but if you were searching for books using the title
and
description
fields, you might want to give more weight to the title
field.
This can be done as described before with the caret (^
) syntax:
[source,js]
GET /books/_search { "query": { "multi_match": { "query": "peter smith", "type": "cross_fields", "fields": [ "title^2", "description" ] <1> } }
}
<1> The title
field has a boost of 2
, while the description
field
has the default boost of 1
.
The advantage of being able to boost individual fields should be weighed
against the cost of querying multiple fields instead of querying a single
custom _all
field. Use whichever of the two solutions that delivers the most
bang for your buck.