On Thursday 18 August 2005 14:32, Tony Schwartz wrote: > Is this a viable solution? > Doesn't this make sorting and filtering much more complex and much more > expensive as well?
Sorting would have to be done on more than one field. I would expect that to be possible. As for filtering: would you need (milli)second resolution for that? > > Tony Schwartz > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Wednesday 17 August 2005 22:49, Paul Elschot wrote: > >> > the index could potentially be huge. > >> > > >> > So if this is indeed the case, it is a potential scalability > >> > bottleneck in lucene index size. > >> > >> Splitting the date field into century, year in century, month, day, hour, > >> seconds, and > >> milliseconds will reduce the total number of indexed terms to 2300 or so. > > > > 1300 is closer, I forgot that I had split off the centuries. I still forgot the minutes. Regards, Paul Elschot --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
