Since this is a community submitted pull request, a Jenkins build has not been kicked off automatically. Can an Elastic organization member please verify the contents of this patch and then kick off a build manually?

hi @fbaligand thanks for sending a PR. I think that the example is correct as-is though. city in the example query is a word that we are searching for rather than the field name to search against.

Hi @javanna,

Why I really think it is a mistake :

• first, the text below the example that explains it, doesn't mention 'city' and mention only 'ny' and 'new york'
• secondly, with this example query, a document with only "city" term will match the query
• thirdly, the query string is invalid : there are 3 ) for 2 (

heya @fbaligand thanks for clarifying, I am reopening this. I still think that city was meant to be part of the query, yet even in that case the explanation and the parentheses would need to be fixed.

@jimczi given that you added this example a while ago, what do you think?

Thanks for reopening the issue !

Concerning ‘city’, for having tested it on Elasticsearch 6.2.1, a document with « Boston City » will match, which is not the aim.

@jimczi
What do you think about this doc fix ?

Sorry for the late reply @fbaligand . city is not a field name in this example, it is just to show how the synonyms are merged with normal terms, in this case the default operator is OR so it is expected that documents that contain only city are returned. IMO the only problem here is the number of parenthesis ;).

Hi @jimczi

Thanks for your answer.
OK, I understand the idea of synonyms with "ny city" and "new york city".
So that this example query can't return results like "salt lake city" or even "city" alone, what do you think about this fix :
(ny OR (new AND york)) AND city

Sorry but I think that this example is fine, the important block of this example is that new and york must match together since it's a multi word synonyms even if the default operator is OR so I'd prefer to keep it as is to emphasize this relation.

Hi @jimczi

OK, no problem.

So I finally only removed last parenthesis.
Is it OK for you ?

Sorry for the late response, I merged your pr in master. Thanks @fbaligand !

Thanks @jimczi for the merge !