WARNING: The 2.x versions of Elasticsearch have passed their EOL dates. If you are running a 2.x version, we strongly advise you to upgrade.
This documentation is no longer maintained and may be removed. For the latest information, see the current Elasticsearch documentation.
Elasticsearch uses a structure called an inverted index, which is designed to allow very fast full-text searches. An inverted index consists of a list of all the unique words that appear in any document, and for each word, a list of the documents in which it appears.
For example, let’s say we have two documents, each with a
containing the following:
- The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
- Quick brown foxes leap over lazy dogs in summer
To create an inverted index, we first split the
content field of each
document into separate words (which we call terms, or tokens), create a
sorted list of all the unique terms, and then list in which document each term
appears. The result looks something like this:
Term Doc_1 Doc_2 ------------------------- Quick | | X The | X | brown | X | X dog | X | dogs | | X fox | X | foxes | | X in | | X jumped | X | lazy | X | X leap | | X over | X | X quick | X | summer | | X the | X | ------------------------
Now, if we want to search for
quick brown, we just need to find the
documents in which each term appears:
Term Doc_1 Doc_2 ------------------------- brown | X | X quick | X | ------------------------ Total | 2 | 1
Both documents match, but the first document has more matches than the second. If we apply a naive similarity algorithm that just counts the number of matching terms, then we can say that the first document is a better match—is more relevant to our query—than the second document.
But there are a few problems with our current inverted index:
quickappear as separate terms, while the user probably thinks of them as the same word.
foxesare pretty similar, as are
dogs; They share the same root word.
leap, while not from the same root word, are similar in meaning. They are synonyms.
With the preceding index, a search for
+Quick +fox wouldn’t match any
documents. (Remember, a preceding
+ means that the word must be present.)
Both the term
Quick and the term
fox have to be in the same document
in order to satisfy the query, but the first doc contains
quick fox and
the second doc contains
Our user could reasonably expect both documents to match the query. We can do better.
If we normalize the terms into a standard format, then we can find documents that contain terms that are not exactly the same as the user requested, but are similar enough to still be relevant. For instance:
Quickcan be lowercased to become
foxescan be stemmed--reduced to its root form—to become
dogscould be stemmed to
leapare synonyms and can be indexed as just the single term
Now the index looks like this:
Term Doc_1 Doc_2 ------------------------- brown | X | X dog | X | X fox | X | X in | | X jump | X | X lazy | X | X over | X | X quick | X | X summer | | X the | X | X ------------------------
But we’re not there yet. Our search for
+Quick +fox would still fail,
because we no longer have the exact term
Quick in our index. However, if
we apply the same normalization rules that we used on the
content field to
our query string, it would become a query for
+quick +fox, which would
match both documents!
This is very important. You can find only terms that exist in your index, so both the indexed text and the query string must be normalized into the same form.
This process of tokenization and normalization is called analysis, which we discuss in the next section.