yeah may be due to that
..
i am using 1.4.2

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 5:47 PM, <r...@hubrick.com> wrote:

> which version do you use - i'm using 1.4.4. ?
>
> On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 1:27:12 PM UTC+2, deepak.chauhan wrote:
>>
>> may be .. i have tried this again in my index ..
>> it is working properly
>> Please check your mapping
>>  or try on another field which is long
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:31 PM, <r...@hubrick.com> wrote:
>>
>>> unfortunately the same issue, ...
>>> Whats strange, filtering / querying these values works as expected. I
>>> guess, that there is an internal mapping working unexpected.
>>>
>>> "starRating": {
>>>       "buckets": [
>>>         {
>>>           "key": "0.0-1.0",
>>>           "from": 0.0,
>>>           "from_as_string": "0.0",
>>>           "to": 1.0,
>>>           "to_as_string": "1.0",
>>>           "doc_count": 5119
>>>         },
>>>         {
>>>           "key": "1.0-2.0",
>>>           "from": 1.0,
>>>           "from_as_string": "1.0",
>>>           "to": 2.0,
>>>           "to_as_string": "2.0",
>>>           "doc_count": 0
>>>         },
>>>         {
>>>           "key": "2.0-3.0",
>>>           "from": 2.0,
>>>           "from_as_string": "2.0",
>>>           "to": 3.0,
>>>           "to_as_string": "3.0",
>>>           "doc_count": 0
>>>         },
>>>         {
>>>           "key": "3.0-4.0",
>>>           "from": 3.0,
>>>           "from_as_string": "3.0",
>>>           "to": 4.0,
>>>           "to_as_string": "4.0",
>>>           "doc_count": 0
>>>         },
>>>         {
>>>           "key": "4.0-5.0",
>>>           "from": 4.0,
>>>           "from_as_string": "4.0",
>>>           "to": 5.0,
>>>           "to_as_string": "5.0",
>>>           "doc_count": 0
>>>         },
>>>         {
>>>           "key": "5.0-6.0",
>>>           "from": 5.0,
>>>           "from_as_string": "5.0",
>>>           "to": 6.0,
>>>           "to_as_string": "6.0",
>>>           "doc_count": 0
>>>         }
>>>       ]
>>>     }
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 12:52:35 PM UTC+2, deepak.chauhan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Besides the Terms filter in aggregation , you should use range
>>>> aggregation .
>>>> It would work like..
>>>>
>>>> {
>>>>   "aggs": {
>>>>     stars" : {
>>>>        "range" : {
>>>>               "field" : "starRating" ,
>>>>              "ranges": [{
>>>>                                 "to": 5
>>>>                             }, {
>>>>                                 "from": 5,
>>>>                                 "to": 10
>>>>                             }, {
>>>>                                 "from": 10,
>>>>                                 "to": 15
>>>>                             }, {
>>>>                                 "from": 15
>>>>                             }]
>>>>
>>>>            }
>>>>     }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:18 PM, <r...@hubrick.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a little bit stucked using Terms aggregations on a numeric field.
>>>>>
>>>>> My schema looks like that:
>>>>>
>>>>> { ...
>>>>>    starRating:
>>>>>    {
>>>>>
>>>>>    -   type: "long"
>>>>>
>>>>>    }
>>>>> ...
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> I pass documents there, works fine.
>>>>> I query them, using a Range Query like, works also fine:
>>>>>
>>>>> {
>>>>>   "range": {
>>>>>     "starRating": {
>>>>>       "from": 0,
>>>>>       "to": 5,
>>>>>     }
>>>>>   }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Whenever I ask for Term Aggregations like:
>>>>>
>>>>> {
>>>>>   "aggs": {
>>>>>     stars" : {
>>>>>        "terms" : { "field" : "starRating" }
>>>>>     }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> OR Facets with
>>>>>
>>>>>   "facets" : {
>>>>>     "tag" : {
>>>>>       "terms" : {
>>>>>         "field" : "starRating"
>>>>>       }
>>>>>     }
>>>>>   }
>>>>>
>>>>> Strange values are returned:
>>>>>
>>>>> "facets": {
>>>>>     "tag": {
>>>>>       "_type": "terms",
>>>>>       "missing": 0,
>>>>>       "total": 3814,
>>>>>       "other": 0,
>>>>>       "terms": [
>>>>>         {
>>>>>           "term": 0.0,
>>>>>           "count": 2397
>>>>>         },
>>>>>         {
>>>>>           "term": 1.5E-323,
>>>>>           "count": 610
>>>>>         },
>>>>>         {
>>>>>           "term": 2.0E-323,
>>>>>           "count": 378
>>>>>         },
>>>>>         {
>>>>>           "term": 1.0E-323,
>>>>>           "count": 269
>>>>>         },
>>>>>         {
>>>>>           "term": 4.9E-324,
>>>>>           "count": 93
>>>>>         },
>>>>>         {
>>>>>           "term": 2.5E-323,
>>>>>           "count": 67
>>>>>         }
>>>>>       ]
>>>>>     }
>>>>>   },
>>>>>   "aggregations": {
>>>>>     "stars": {
>>>>>       "doc_count_error_upper_bound": 0,
>>>>>       "sum_other_doc_count": 0,
>>>>>       "buckets": [
>>>>>         {
>>>>>           "key": 0.0,
>>>>>           "doc_count": 2397
>>>>>         },
>>>>>         {
>>>>>           "key": 1.5E-323,
>>>>>           "doc_count": 610
>>>>>         },
>>>>>         {
>>>>>           "key": 2.0E-323,
>>>>>           "doc_count": 378
>>>>>         },
>>>>>         {
>>>>>           "key": 1.0E-323,
>>>>>           "doc_count": 269
>>>>>         },
>>>>>         {
>>>>>           "key": 4.9E-324,
>>>>>           "doc_count": 93
>>>>>         },
>>>>>         {
>>>>>           "key": 2.5E-323,
>>>>>           "doc_count": 67
>>>>>         }
>>>>>       ]
>>>>>     }
>>>>>   }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even in the Java Client, I get DoubleTerms instead of LongTerms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anybody have an Idea, what wents wrong there. I would expect
>>>>> Long-Keys and not Double keys (which are basically close to 0)
>>>>> The Histogram (with interval of 1) also does not work, everything is
>>>>> close to the zero valued key.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers, Ralf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  --
>>>>> 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 elasticsearc...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/7c604a6a-aaf8-4645-903b-d9472868b1bd%40googlegroups.com
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/7c604a6a-aaf8-4645-903b-d9472868b1bd%40googlegroups.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 elasticsearc...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/831df5f8-a5d3-4c90-b4c7-d40f12df514d%40googlegroups.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/831df5f8-a5d3-4c90-b4c7-d40f12df514d%40googlegroups.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 elasticsearch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/c8c251f4-00f6-4229-b7f2-760ec3b0d6db%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/c8c251f4-00f6-4229-b7f2-760ec3b0d6db%40googlegroups.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 elasticsearch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CAHzCMpotCzVQAn%2Bc3cdnA1SHZe05aO3LqmTR9HUdbgvE_KhFKQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to