> DateField has a utility method to return a String:
>
> DateField.timeToString(file.lastModified())
>
> You'd use that String to pass to Field.UnStored.
>
> I recommend, though, that you use a different format, such as the
> YYYY-MM-DD format you're using.
Well, I read YYYY-MM-DD format string from a database.
So, I need to know how to convert YYYY-MM-DD to DateField.timeToString()'s
result format.
Or I have to convert YYYY-MM-DD to file.lastModified()'s format which I can
pass to
DateField.timeToString().
What is the easiest solution?
> In Lucene's latest codebase (though not in 1.4.x) includes RangeFilter
> which would do the trick for you. If you want to stick with Lucene
> 1.4.x, that's fine... just grab the code for that filter and use it as
> a custom filter - its compatible with 1.4.x.
So, why do you recommend RangeFilter over DateFilter?
Does it require less index data or/and has it better performance?
(I'm using 1.4.2)
> It depends on whether you instantiate a new filter for each search.
> Building a filter requires scanning through the terms in the index to
> build BitSet for the documents that fall in that range. Filters are
> best used over multiple searches.
Simply saying:
I let the user to enter the search string on a HTML form, then I call my custom
lucene-based java
class through command line (the calling method may change to the PHP-to-JAVA
bridge if it'll be
perfect for my needs).
So, every search is a whole new round. New HTML FORM post -> new command line
JVM call -> new
index searcher, etc...
The OS is caching the index file pretty well (only the memory size is the limit
of course).
Will my implementation's performance drop down a lot when I implement
DateFilter?
Regards,
Sanyi
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
