Indeed there is no need to wrap a missing filter inside of a bool filter and execution performance would be exactly the same.
What you just said about filters is correct. On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:47 PM, JoeZ99 <[email protected]> wrote: > just for the purpose of clarification. > > the "bitset" feature is equivalent to the "cacheable" feature. the AND/OR > filters can't cache its results since they always have to compare to other > docs , but if a filter can be "translated" into a bitset, then it can be > "saved" for future references, and that doc hasn't to be examined again in > order to see if complies with the filter, but a single look at its bitset > records should be enough. > > ?? > > > On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:24:29 PM UTC-5, Binh Ly wrote: >> >> The missing filter should be cached by default if that's what you wanted >> to know: >> >> http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/en/elasticsearch/ >> reference/current/query-dsl-missing-filter.html >> >> So no need to bool it if that's what you're worried about. >> > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/4d43eaed-5534-4842-a3f1-73a7d648bc1d%40googlegroups.com > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Adrien Grand -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CAL6Z4j6M8joqsVLFq-Oc5W%3DhXwvMQjVo37CGeFEpaC-KCLuuVA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
