Thanks Binh. That looks very promising. I was able to make a multi-index multi_match querying my index_named fields. Here's my Sense session: https://gist.github.com/AndrewO/10930544
I noticed a slight but consistent increase in size (~200b for 1 document) for an index with an index_name'd mapping vs. one without. Any idea what could account for that? Or is this just noise? There are two problems that are still open for me with this approach: 1. _source doesn't seem to respect index_names, so I can't limit the response fields using my common index_names. 2. Highlighting doesn't seem to include copy_to fields. I might be missing a setting here... The gist has some examples demonstrating these. Any pointers would be appreciated. On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:55:45 AM UTC-4, Binh Ly wrote: > > Not sure if this would help, but in your mapping, on a field, you can > specify "index_name", in which case you can refer to that name in your > queries. > -- 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/16cfded4-eb47-44be-9032-c347d0691dc8%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
