We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
Elastic.Clients.Elasticsearch version: 8.15.4
Elasticsearch version: 8.15.4
.NET runtime version: 8.0
Hi, I'm trying to get all docs from my elastic index but I'm having trouble with the .MatchAll query. I had imagined it would look like:
var searchResponse = await this.elasticsearchClient.SearchAsync<Model>(s => s .Index(Index) .Query(q => q .MatchAll() ));
However it's asking for a MatchAllQueryDescriptor, I'm sure what I'm meant to put here...
I have a version working with:
.Query(new MatchAllQuery()
Is this the intended method to create a MatchAll query? Any guidance/docs would be be greatly appreciated, thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @TSlump,
the non descriptor based approach is fine to use.
The descriptor syntax is a bit weird in the 8.x client:
.MatchAll(_ => {})
In the 9.x clients we improved the syntax to allow for just:
.MatchAll()
These changes are going to get backported for 8.19.
Please let me know if that answers your question.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Hi @flobernd , thanks for your response!
That has worked great, I appreciate your help. Thanks again.
No branches or pull requests
Elastic.Clients.Elasticsearch version: 8.15.4
Elasticsearch version: 8.15.4
.NET runtime version: 8.0
Hi, I'm trying to get all docs from my elastic index but I'm having trouble with the .MatchAll query. I had imagined it would look like:
However it's asking for a MatchAllQueryDescriptor, I'm sure what I'm meant to put here...
I have a version working with:
Is this the intended method to create a MatchAll query? Any guidance/docs would be be greatly appreciated, thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: