Hi Adrien,
Thanks for the quick reply, this answers everything for me.

-Saurabh

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Adrien Grand <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Saurabh Minni <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I was trying to check Cardinality Aggregation. I believe it will give me
>> an approx value of the number of unique users.
>>
>> Below is what I am using.
>> {
>>     "aggs" : {
>>         "user_count" : {
>>             "cardinality" : {
>>                 "field" : "userid"
>>             }
>>         }
>>     }
>> }
>>
>> Can some one confirm a few things for me.
>>
>> 1. What is the accuracy of the result.
>>
>
> The accuracy is quite good in general, we tried to give some examples in
> the documentations to show that even with rather low values of the
> precision threshold, the error is often very low. The paper about
> HyperLogLog++ (the algorithm beneath the cardinality aggregation) gives
> more information about the error margin that you can expect (see figure 8
> in particular).
>
>
> http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/search-aggregations-metrics-cardinality-aggregation.html#_counts_are_approximate
> http://stefanheule.com/papers/edbt2013-hyperloglog.pdf
>
>
>> 2. Is this is the only way or are there other options to do this as well.
>>
>
> Not really. If you know the cardinality is going to be low (< 1000), you
> could use a terms aggregation with a size of 0 (which tells elasticsearch
> to return all terms) and count the number of terms returned. Although this
> would help you find out the exact number of terms, this would not scale for
> high cardinalities, and the `cardinality` aggregation has optimizations
> that make it almost accurate when cardinalities are low anyway.
>
>
>> 3. This feature is experimental as per docs, what are the future roadmaps
>> for this, if any ?
>>
>
> There are no concrete plans at the moment. When we added this aggregation
> in Elasticsearch 1.1, it was quite new in terms of functionalities that
> elasticsearch exposes, so we wanted to make it experimental in order to
> have the freedom to modify it based on feedback. The experimental flag will
> very likely be removed in the next major version.
>
> --
> Adrien Grand
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "elasticsearch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/elasticsearch/zx9UFt2JPNY/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CAL6Z4j6_EWm0_hNyuNGmTc%3DjUxd8RyctDAC65XPOWyZGhggBaw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CAL6Z4j6_EWm0_hNyuNGmTc%3DjUxd8RyctDAC65XPOWyZGhggBaw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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/CAHGf3smr%2BzvvagNQEQa1tdh7m5JxxH1bhGaaOq%3Dm35MLPqq0yg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to