Skip to content

Commit baf155d

Browse files
authored
Add RareTerms aggregation (#35718)
This adds a `rare_terms` aggregation. It is an aggregation designed to identify the long-tail of keywords, e.g. terms that are "rare" or have low doc counts. This aggregation is designed to be more memory efficient than the alternative, which is setting a terms aggregation to size: LONG_MAX (or worse, ordering a terms agg by count ascending, which has unbounded error). This aggregation works by maintaining a map of terms that have been seen. A counter associated with each value is incremented when we see the term again. If the counter surpasses a predefined threshold, the term is removed from the map and inserted into a cuckoo filter. If a future term is found in the cuckoo filter we assume it was previously removed from the map and is "common". The map keys are the "rare" terms after collection is done.
1 parent 8f77726 commit baf155d

31 files changed

+4516
-17
lines changed

docs/reference/aggregations/bucket.asciidoc

+1
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -64,3 +64,4 @@ include::bucket/significantterms-aggregation.asciidoc[]
6464
include::bucket/significanttext-aggregation.asciidoc[]
6565

6666
include::bucket/terms-aggregation.asciidoc[]
67+
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,357 @@
1+
[[search-aggregations-bucket-rare-terms-aggregation]]
2+
=== Rare Terms Aggregation
3+
4+
A multi-bucket value source based aggregation which finds "rare" terms -- terms that are at the long-tail
5+
of the distribution and are not frequent. Conceptually, this is like a `terms` aggregation that is
6+
sorted by `_count` ascending. As noted in the <<search-aggregations-bucket-terms-aggregation-order,terms aggregation docs>>,
7+
actually ordering a `terms` agg by count ascending has unbounded error. Instead, you should use the `rare_terms`
8+
aggregation
9+
10+
//////////////////////////
11+
12+
[source,js]
13+
--------------------------------------------------
14+
PUT /products
15+
{
16+
"mappings": {
17+
"properties": {
18+
"genre": {
19+
"type": "keyword"
20+
},
21+
"product": {
22+
"type": "keyword"
23+
}
24+
}
25+
}
26+
}
27+
28+
POST /products/_doc/_bulk?refresh
29+
{"index":{"_id":0}}
30+
{"genre": "rock", "product": "Product A"}
31+
{"index":{"_id":1}}
32+
{"genre": "rock"}
33+
{"index":{"_id":2}}
34+
{"genre": "rock"}
35+
{"index":{"_id":3}}
36+
{"genre": "jazz", "product": "Product Z"}
37+
{"index":{"_id":4}}
38+
{"genre": "jazz"}
39+
{"index":{"_id":5}}
40+
{"genre": "electronic"}
41+
{"index":{"_id":6}}
42+
{"genre": "electronic"}
43+
{"index":{"_id":7}}
44+
{"genre": "electronic"}
45+
{"index":{"_id":8}}
46+
{"genre": "electronic"}
47+
{"index":{"_id":9}}
48+
{"genre": "electronic"}
49+
{"index":{"_id":10}}
50+
{"genre": "swing"}
51+
52+
-------------------------------------------------
53+
// NOTCONSOLE
54+
// TESTSETUP
55+
56+
//////////////////////////
57+
58+
==== Syntax
59+
60+
A `rare_terms` aggregation looks like this in isolation:
61+
62+
[source,js]
63+
--------------------------------------------------
64+
{
65+
"rare_terms": {
66+
"field": "the_field",
67+
"max_doc_count": 1
68+
}
69+
}
70+
--------------------------------------------------
71+
// NOTCONSOLE
72+
73+
.`rare_terms` Parameters
74+
|===
75+
|Parameter Name |Description |Required |Default Value
76+
|`field` |The field we wish to find rare terms in |Required |
77+
|`max_doc_count` |The maximum number of documents a term should appear in. |Optional |`1`
78+
|`precision` |The precision of the internal CuckooFilters. Smaller precision leads to
79+
better approximation, but higher memory usage. Cannot be smaller than `0.00001` |Optional |`0.01`
80+
|`include` |Terms that should be included in the aggregation|Optional |
81+
|`exclude` |Terms that should be excluded from the aggregation|Optional |
82+
|`missing` |The value that should be used if a document does not have the field being aggregated|Optional |
83+
|===
84+
85+
86+
Example:
87+
88+
[source,js]
89+
--------------------------------------------------
90+
GET /_search
91+
{
92+
"aggs" : {
93+
"genres" : {
94+
"rare_terms" : {
95+
"field" : "genre"
96+
}
97+
}
98+
}
99+
}
100+
--------------------------------------------------
101+
// CONSOLE
102+
// TEST[s/_search/_search\?filter_path=aggregations/]
103+
104+
Response:
105+
106+
[source,js]
107+
--------------------------------------------------
108+
{
109+
...
110+
"aggregations" : {
111+
"genres" : {
112+
"buckets" : [
113+
{
114+
"key" : "swing",
115+
"doc_count" : 1
116+
}
117+
]
118+
}
119+
}
120+
}
121+
--------------------------------------------------
122+
// TESTRESPONSE[s/\.\.\.//]
123+
124+
In this example, the only bucket that we see is the "swing" bucket, because it is the only term that appears in
125+
one document. If we increase the `max_doc_count` to `2`, we'll see some more buckets:
126+
127+
[source,js]
128+
--------------------------------------------------
129+
GET /_search
130+
{
131+
"aggs" : {
132+
"genres" : {
133+
"rare_terms" : {
134+
"field" : "genre",
135+
"max_doc_count": 2
136+
}
137+
}
138+
}
139+
}
140+
--------------------------------------------------
141+
// CONSOLE
142+
// TEST[s/_search/_search\?filter_path=aggregations/]
143+
144+
This now shows the "jazz" term which has a `doc_count` of 2":
145+
146+
[source,js]
147+
--------------------------------------------------
148+
{
149+
...
150+
"aggregations" : {
151+
"genres" : {
152+
"buckets" : [
153+
{
154+
"key" : "swing",
155+
"doc_count" : 1
156+
},
157+
{
158+
"key" : "jazz",
159+
"doc_count" : 2
160+
}
161+
]
162+
}
163+
}
164+
}
165+
--------------------------------------------------
166+
// TESTRESPONSE[s/\.\.\.//]
167+
168+
[[search-aggregations-bucket-rare-terms-aggregation-max-doc-count]]
169+
==== Maximum document count
170+
171+
The `max_doc_count` parameter is used to control the upper bound of document counts that a term can have. There
172+
is not a size limitation on the `rare_terms` agg like `terms` agg has. This means that terms
173+
which match the `max_doc_count` criteria will be returned. The aggregation functions in this manner to avoid
174+
the order-by-ascending issues that afflict the `terms` aggregation.
175+
176+
This does, however, mean that a large number of results can be returned if chosen incorrectly.
177+
To limit the danger of this setting, the maximum `max_doc_count` is 100.
178+
179+
[[search-aggregations-bucket-rare-terms-aggregation-max-buckets]]
180+
==== Max Bucket Limit
181+
182+
The Rare Terms aggregation is more liable to trip the `search.max_buckets` soft limit than other aggregations due
183+
to how it works. The `max_bucket` soft-limit is evaluated on a per-shard basis while the aggregation is collecting
184+
results. It is possible for a term to be "rare" on a shard but become "not rare" once all the shard results are
185+
merged together. This means that individual shards tend to collect more buckets than are truly rare, because
186+
they only have their own local view. This list is ultimately pruned to the correct, smaller list of rare
187+
terms on the coordinating node... but a shard may have already tripped the `max_buckets` soft limit and aborted
188+
the request.
189+
190+
When aggregating on fields that have potentially many "rare" terms, you may need to increase the `max_buckets` soft
191+
limit. Alternatively, you might need to find a way to filter the results to return fewer rare values (smaller time
192+
span, filter by category, etc), or re-evaluate your definition of "rare" (e.g. if something
193+
appears 100,000 times, is it truly "rare"?)
194+
195+
[[search-aggregations-bucket-rare-terms-aggregation-approximate-counts]]
196+
==== Document counts are approximate
197+
198+
The naive way to determine the "rare" terms in a dataset is to place all the values in a map, incrementing counts
199+
as each document is visited, then return the bottom `n` rows. This does not scale beyond even modestly sized data
200+
sets. A sharded approach where only the "top n" values are retained from each shard (ala the `terms` aggregation)
201+
fails because the long-tail nature of the problem means it is impossible to find the "top n" bottom values without
202+
simply collecting all the values from all shards.
203+
204+
Instead, the Rare Terms aggregation uses a different approximate algorithm:
205+
206+
1. Values are placed in a map the first time they are seen.
207+
2. Each addition occurrence of the term increments a counter in the map
208+
3. If the counter > the `max_doc_count` threshold, the term is removed from the map and placed in a
209+
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dga/papers/cuckoo-conext2014.pdf[CuckooFilter]
210+
4. The CuckooFilter is consulted on each term. If the value is inside the filter, it is known to be above the
211+
threshold already and skipped.
212+
213+
After execution, the map of values is the map of "rare" terms under the `max_doc_count` threshold. This map and CuckooFilter
214+
are then merged with all other shards. If there are terms that are greater than the threshold (or appear in
215+
a different shard's CuckooFilter) the term is removed from the merged list. The final map of values is returned
216+
to the user as the "rare" terms.
217+
218+
CuckooFilters have the possibility of returning false positives (they can say a value exists in their collection when
219+
it actually does not). Since the CuckooFilter is being used to see if a term is over threshold, this means a false positive
220+
from the CuckooFilter will mistakenly say a value is common when it is not (and thus exclude it from it final list of buckets).
221+
Practically, this means the aggregations exhibits false-negative behavior since the filter is being used "in reverse"
222+
of how people generally think of approximate set membership sketches.
223+
224+
CuckooFilters are described in more detail in the paper:
225+
226+
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dga/papers/cuckoo-conext2014.pdf[Fan, Bin, et al. "Cuckoo filter: Practically better than bloom."]
227+
Proceedings of the 10th ACM International on Conference on emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies. ACM, 2014.
228+
229+
==== Precision
230+
231+
Although the internal CuckooFilter is approximate in nature, the false-negative rate can be controlled with a
232+
`precision` parameter. This allows the user to trade more runtime memory for more accurate results.
233+
234+
The default precision is `0.001`, and the smallest (e.g. most accurate and largest memory overhead) is `0.00001`.
235+
Below are some charts which demonstrate how the accuracy of the aggregation is affected by precision and number
236+
of distinct terms.
237+
238+
The X-axis shows the number of distinct values the aggregation has seen, and the Y-axis shows the percent error.
239+
Each line series represents one "rarity" condition (ranging from one rare item to 100,000 rare items). For example,
240+
the orange "10" line means ten of the values were "rare" (`doc_count == 1`), out of 1-20m distinct values (where the
241+
rest of the values had `doc_count > 1`)
242+
243+
This first chart shows precision `0.01`:
244+
245+
image:images/rare_terms/accuracy_01.png[]
246+
247+
And precision `0.001` (the default):
248+
249+
image:images/rare_terms/accuracy_001.png[]
250+
251+
And finally `precision 0.0001`:
252+
253+
image:images/rare_terms/accuracy_0001.png[]
254+
255+
The default precision of `0.001` maintains an accuracy of < 2.5% for the tested conditions, and accuracy slowly
256+
degrades in a controlled, linear fashion as the number of distinct values increases.
257+
258+
The default precision of `0.001` has a memory profile of `1.748⁻⁶ * n` bytes, where `n` is the number
259+
of distinct values the aggregation has seen (it can also be roughly eyeballed, e.g. 20 million unique values is about
260+
30mb of memory). The memory usage is linear to the number of distinct values regardless of which precision is chosen,
261+
the precision only affects the slope of the memory profile as seen in this chart:
262+
263+
image:images/rare_terms/memory.png[]
264+
265+
For comparison, an equivalent terms aggregation at 20 million buckets would be roughly
266+
`20m * 69b == ~1.38gb` (with 69 bytes being a very optimistic estimate of an empty bucket cost, far lower than what
267+
the circuit breaker accounts for). So although the `rare_terms` agg is relatively heavy, it is still orders of
268+
magnitude smaller than the equivalent terms aggregation
269+
270+
==== Filtering Values
271+
272+
It is possible to filter the values for which buckets will be created. This can be done using the `include` and
273+
`exclude` parameters which are based on regular expression strings or arrays of exact values. Additionally,
274+
`include` clauses can filter using `partition` expressions.
275+
276+
===== Filtering Values with regular expressions
277+
278+
[source,js]
279+
--------------------------------------------------
280+
GET /_search
281+
{
282+
"aggs" : {
283+
"genres" : {
284+
"rare_terms" : {
285+
"field" : "genre",
286+
"include" : "swi*",
287+
"exclude" : "electro*"
288+
}
289+
}
290+
}
291+
}
292+
--------------------------------------------------
293+
// CONSOLE
294+
295+
In the above example, buckets will be created for all the tags that starts with `swi`, except those starting
296+
with `electro` (so the tag `swing` will be aggregated but not `electro_swing`). The `include` regular expression will determine what
297+
values are "allowed" to be aggregated, while the `exclude` determines the values that should not be aggregated. When
298+
both are defined, the `exclude` has precedence, meaning, the `include` is evaluated first and only then the `exclude`.
299+
300+
The syntax is the same as <<regexp-syntax,regexp queries>>.
301+
302+
===== Filtering Values with exact values
303+
304+
For matching based on exact values the `include` and `exclude` parameters can simply take an array of
305+
strings that represent the terms as they are found in the index:
306+
307+
[source,js]
308+
--------------------------------------------------
309+
GET /_search
310+
{
311+
"aggs" : {
312+
"genres" : {
313+
"rare_terms" : {
314+
"field" : "genre",
315+
"include" : ["swing", "rock"],
316+
"exclude" : ["jazz"]
317+
}
318+
}
319+
}
320+
}
321+
--------------------------------------------------
322+
// CONSOLE
323+
324+
325+
==== Missing value
326+
327+
The `missing` parameter defines how documents that are missing a value should be treated.
328+
By default they will be ignored but it is also possible to treat them as if they
329+
had a value.
330+
331+
[source,js]
332+
--------------------------------------------------
333+
GET /_search
334+
{
335+
"aggs" : {
336+
"genres" : {
337+
"rare_terms" : {
338+
"field" : "genre",
339+
"missing": "N/A" <1>
340+
}
341+
}
342+
}
343+
}
344+
--------------------------------------------------
345+
// CONSOLE
346+
347+
<1> Documents without a value in the `tags` field will fall into the same bucket as documents that have the value `N/A`.
348+
349+
==== Nested, RareTerms, and scoring sub-aggregations
350+
351+
The RareTerms aggregation has to operate in `breadth_first` mode, since it needs to prune terms as doc count thresholds
352+
are breached. This requirement means the RareTerms aggregation is incompatible with certain combinations of aggregations
353+
that require `depth_first`. In particular, scoring sub-aggregations that are inside a `nested` force the entire aggregation tree to run
354+
in `depth_first` mode. This will throw an exception since RareTerms is unable to process `depth_first`.
355+
356+
As a concrete example, if `rare_terms` aggregation is the child of a `nested` aggregation, and one of the child aggregations of `rare_terms`
357+
needs document scores (like a `top_hits` aggregation), this will throw an exception.
Loading
Loading
24.5 KB
Loading
20 KB
Loading

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)