lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Why isn't the DateField implementation of ISO 8601 broader?
Date Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:40:27 GMT
> My question is why isn't the DateField implementation of ISO 8601 broader so that it could
include YYYY and YYYYMM as acceptable date strings?  What would it take to do so?

Nobody ever cared? But yes, you're right, the spurious precision is
annoying. However, there is no "fuzzy search" for dates so the
precision is always used. Let's say I want to limit it to "19th
century America culture". 1790-1910 are a fairly contiguous sequence
in US history, with a massive break at 1910 for WW1.

> Are there any work-arounds for faceting by century, year, month without creating new
fields in my schema?  The last resort would be to create these new fields but I'm hoping to
leverage the power of the DateField and the trie to replace range stuff.

There are no workarounds as yet. You do not have to store the
century/year etc. fields, only index them.

Tries do not support faceting yet.

> Some interesting observations from tinkering with the DateFieldTest:
>   * 2003-03-00T00:00:00Z becomes 2003-02-28T00:00:00Z

The date parser should blow up with these values!

Mime
View raw message