Скачать или смотреть How to Fix the Elasticsearch Range Aggregation Ignoring Negative Values

Discover how to solve the issue of `Elasticsearch` ignoring negative values in range aggregation, ensuring accurate data representation for your queries.
---
This video is based on the question https://stackoverflow.com/q/72376077/ asked by the user 'Ruofan Wang' ( https://stackoverflow.com/u/5392964/ ) and on the answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/72377993/ provided by the user 'Val' ( https://stackoverflow.com/u/4604579/ ) at 'Stack Overflow' website. Thanks to these great users and Stackexchange community for their contributions.

Visit these links for original content and any more details, such as alternate solutions, latest updates/developments on topic, comments, revision history etc. For example, the original title of the Question was: Elasticsearch range aggregation ignores negative values

Also, Content (except music) licensed under CC BY-SA https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/l...
The original Question post is licensed under the 'CC BY-SA 4.0' ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... ) license, and the original Answer post is licensed under the 'CC BY-SA 4.0' ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... ) license.

If anything seems off to you, please feel free to write me at vlogize [AT] gmail [DOT] com.
---
Handling Negative Values in Elasticsearch Range Aggregation

When working with Elasticsearch, you might encounter scenarios that can lead to unexpected behavior. One common problem is when range aggregations seem to ignore negative values. If you're attempting to categorize data that includes negative integers, understanding the aggregation’s mechanics can help you achieve accurate results.

The Problem

Imagine you’re trying to categorize your data into two specific buckets:

All values <= 0, which includes all negative numbers and zero.

All values >= 1, which covers one and all positive integers.

Your initial attempt using a standard range aggregation might look like this:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

However, as observed, this setup leads to an output that does not match your expectations, particularly ignoring negative values.

Understanding the Issue

The key issue lies in how the to parameter is defined in range aggregations. In Elasticsearch, any number specified with to is exclusive by default. This means that it does not include the upper boundary (in this case, zero). Thus, while you aimed to include zero in your bucket of values <= 0, it instead got excluded.

Example of Unexpected Response

In your initial query, the response came back with:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

Here, you only see 1 document in the bucket of values *-0.0, and it doesn’t account accurately for 0 or negative values.

The Solution

To effectively include both zero and negative numbers in your range aggregation, we will utilize the lte (less than or equal) and gte (greater than or equal) parameters instead of to and from. Here’s how you can redefine your query:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

Why This Works

lte: 0: This specification now means your aggregation will include both 0 and any negative numbers, fulfilling your first bucket’s criteria.

gte: 1: This setup correctly captures all numbers starting from 1 upward into your second bucket.

Conclusion

By correctly adjusting your query to use lte and gte, you ensure that negative integers are considered in your range aggregations within Elasticsearch. This fix not only applies to this scenario but is also a useful approach whenever you're working with aggregations in Elasticsearch. Be sure to test your query after modifying it to verify that it meets your expectations.

With these adjustments, you can confidently categorize your data without worrying about inadvertently omitting critical values such as negative integers.