Skip to content

Support for size and order in all bucket aggregations #6704

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
colings86 opened this issue Jul 3, 2014 · 10 comments
Closed

Support for size and order in all bucket aggregations #6704

colings86 opened this issue Jul 3, 2014 · 10 comments

Comments

@colings86
Copy link
Contributor

At the moment not all of the bucket aggregations support returning buckets in a particular order or limiting the number of returned buckets. Because of this the aggregations that support size and order have their own implementations for this. It would be nice to have a common implementation which can be used by all bucket aggregations. This would also ensure the implementations are consistent in functionality

@uboness
Copy link
Contributor

uboness commented Jul 3, 2014

+1

@colings86 colings86 self-assigned this Jul 3, 2014
@jpountz
Copy link
Contributor

jpountz commented Jul 8, 2014

+1

@s1monw s1monw added v1.4.0 and removed v1.3.0 labels Jul 9, 2014
@s1monw
Copy link
Contributor

s1monw commented Jul 9, 2014

moving out to 1.4 for now

@djnelson9715
Copy link

+1 as well for this feature. Is this going to be in an upcoming release?

@Vineeth-Mohan
Copy link

+1

@jaric
Copy link

jaric commented Sep 24, 2014

+1

@clintongormley
Copy link
Contributor

@colings86 still of interest?

@colings86
Copy link
Contributor Author

@clintongormley No, with the addition of Pipeline Aggregations I think it would be better to have a 'sort and truncate' pipeline aggregation to cover this functionality in a generic way across all aggregations rather than having to implement it for each one individually. I have created an issue (#14928) for this so I'll close this in favour of it

@jpountz
Copy link
Contributor

jpountz commented Nov 23, 2015

+1

@McStork
Copy link

McStork commented Feb 1, 2016

This feature seems pretty cool. If it was implemented outside of the Pipeline Aggregations, it would perform faster though, right?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants