I don't understand what you are asking either. It may be that you do not understand percolator very well?
This is an example I just tried now.
Let's assume you have an index - let's call it test - in which you want to index some documents. This index has the following mapping (just a random test index I have in my test setup):
{
"settings": {
"analysis": {
"filter": {
"email": {
"type": "pattern_capture",
"preserve_original": true,
"patterns": [
"([^@]+)",
"(\\p{L}+)",
"(\\d+)",
"@(.+)",
"([^-@]+)"
]
}
},
"analyzer": {
"email": {
"tokenizer": "uax_url_email",
"filter": [
"email",
"lowercase",
"unique"
]
}
}
}
},
"mappings": {
"properties": {
"code": {
"type": "long"
},
"date": {
"type": "date"
},
"part": {
"type": "text",
"fields": {
"keyword": {
"type": "keyword",
"ignore_above": 256
}
}
},
"val": {
"type": "long"
},
"email": {
"type": "text",
"analyzer": "email"
}
}
}
}
You notice it has a custom email analyzer that splits something like foo@bar.com into these tokens: foo@bar.com, foo, bar.com, bar, com.
As the documentation says, you could create a separate percolator index that will hold only your percolator queries, not also the documents themselves. And, even if the percolator index doesn't contain the documents themselves, it should hold the mapping of the index that should hold the documents (test in our case).
This is the mapping of the percolator index (which I called it percolator_index) that also has the special analyzer used for splitting the email field:
{
"settings": {
"analysis": {
"filter": {
"email": {
"type": "pattern_capture",
"preserve_original": true,
"patterns": [
"([^@]+)",
"(\\p{L}+)",
"(\\d+)",
"@(.+)",
"([^-@]+)"
]
}
},
"analyzer": {
"email": {
"tokenizer": "uax_url_email",
"filter": [
"email",
"lowercase",
"unique"
]
}
}
}
},
"mappings": {
"properties": {
"query": {
"type": "percolator"
},
"code": {
"type": "long"
},
"date": {
"type": "date"
},
"part": {
"type": "text",
"fields": {
"keyword": {
"type": "keyword",
"ignore_above": 256
}
}
},
"val": {
"type": "long"
},
"email": {
"type": "text",
"analyzer": "email"
}
}
}
}
Its mapping and settings are almost the same with my original index, the only difference being the additional query field which is of type percolator added to the mapping.
The query you are interested it - simple_query_string - should go into a document inside percolator_index. Like so:
PUT /percolator_index/_doc/1?refresh
{
"query": {
"simple_query_string" : {
"query" : "month foo@bar.com",
"fields": ["part", "email"]
}
}
}
To make it more interesting, I added the email field in there to be specifically searched for in the query (by default, all of them are searched).
Now, the aim is to test a document that should eventually go into test index against this simple_query_string query from your percolator index. For example:
GET /percolator_index/_search
{
"query": {
"percolate": {
"field": "query",
"document": {
"date":"2004-07-31T11:57:52.000Z","part":"month","code":109,"val":0,"email":"foo@bar.com"
}
}
}
}
What's under document is, obviously, your future (non-existent yet) document. This will be matched against the above defined simple_query_string and will result in a match:
{
"hits": {
"total": {
"value": 1,
"relation": "eq"
},
"max_score": 0.39324823,
"hits": [
{
"_index": "percolator_index",
"_type": "_doc",
"_id": "1",
"_score": 0.39324823,
"_source": {
"query": {
"simple_query_string": {
"query": "month foo@bar.com",
"fields": [
"part",
"email"
]
}
}
},
"fields": {
"_percolator_document_slot": [
0
]
}
}
]
}
}
What if I would have percolated this document instead:
{
"query": {
"percolate": {
"field": "query",
"document": {
"date":"2004-07-31T11:57:52.000Z","part":"month","code":109,"val":0,"email":"foo"
}
}
}
}
(notice that the email is only foo)
This is the result:
{
"hits": {
"total": {
"value": 1,
"relation": "eq"
},
"max_score": 0.26152915,
"hits": [
{
"_index": "percolator_index",
"_type": "_doc",
"_id": "1",
"_score": 0.26152915,
"_source": {
"query": {
"simple_query_string": {
"query": "month foo@bar.com",
"fields": [
"part",
"email"
]
}
}
},
"fields": {
"_percolator_document_slot": [
0
]
}
}
]
}
}
Notice that the score is a bit lower than the first percolated document. This is probably like this because foo (my email) matched only one of the terms inside my analyzed foo@bar.com, while foo@bar.com would have matched all of them (thus giving a better score)
Not sure what analyzer are you talking about though. I think the example above covers the only "analyzer" issue/unknown that I think may be a bit confusing.
