Ben writes:
>
> I store my date in milliseconds, how can I do a sort on it? SortField
> has INT, FLOAT and STRING. Do I need to create a new sort class, to
> sort the long value?
>
Why do you need that precicion?
Remember: there's a price to pay. The memory required for sor
Just an idea off the top of my head you could create a custom sort,
or alternatively you could store the date as separate fields such as
"year", "month", "day", "time", and provide multi-field sort.
Erik
On Feb 25, 2005, at 11:36 PM, Ben wrote:
Hi
I store my date in milliseconds, how
Hi
I store my date in milliseconds, how can I do a sort on it? SortField
has INT, FLOAT and STRING. Do I need to create a new sort class, to
sort the long value?
Thanks
Ben
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additio
Hi
Do I need to store and index the field I want to sort? Currently I am
only indexing the field without storing nor tokenizing it.
I have a date field indexing as MMdd and I have two documents with
the same date. When I do my search with:
searcher.search(query, new SortField("date", true));
most-simple" solution to indexing and
sorting. I was hoping that it would be possible to sort on our fields
without requiring the use (and therefore prior knowledge of) specific
sort fields.
Useful would be the ability to add a sort term to fields, along with
their regular terms. If the field is no
quot;-");
> ex.displayResults(query, new Sort("title"));
>
>
System.out.println("-");
>
> When I do a search on "author:blake"
>
> The first two types o
ex.displayResults(query, new Sort("title"));
System.out.println("-----");
When I do a search on "author:blake"
The first two types of sorting (RELEVANCE and INDEXORDER) work
The "author" and "title" sortings do not seem t
Hello,
--- mahaveer jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am looking out to implement sorting in my lucene application. This
> is what my code look like.
>
> I am using StandardAnalyzer() analyzer.
>
> Query query = QueryParser.parse(keyword, "contents", a
Hello All,
I am looking out to implement sorting in my lucene application. This is what my
code look like.
I am using StandardAnalyzer() analyzer.
Query query = QueryParser.parse(keyword, "contents", analyzer);
Sort sortCol = new Sort(new SortField("date"));
// date
On Dec 29, 2004, at 12:36 PM, Praveen Peddi wrote:
Hi fellow luceners,
I was looking at the lucene sorting code and it looks like lucene does
consider locale into account while sorting. So I assume lucene already
handles for strings.
But in my case, I wrote my own SortComparator
Hi,
Sorry for the late response. I didn't cheak the reply till now.
I think sorting on a field that doesn't exist for every doc is throwing
NullPointerException for me (if its of type string). FYI: I am using my own
comparator for string (see below for the code). I am sure something i
Hi fellow luceners,
I was looking at the lucene sorting code and it looks like lucene does consider
locale into account while sorting. So I assume lucene already handles for
strings.
But in my case, I wrote my own SortComparator (StringIgnoreCaseSortComparator)
to achieve sorting similar to
: I thought of putting empty strings instead of null values but I think
: empty strings are put first in the list while sorting which is the
: reverse of what anyone would want.
instead of adding a field with a null value, or value of an epty string,
why not just leave the field out for that
I sent this mail yesterday but had no luck in receiving responses. Trying it
again .
Hi all,
I am getting null pointer exception when I am sorting on a field that has null
value for some documents. "Order by" in sql does work on such fields and I
think it puts all results
Hi all,
I am getting null pointer exception when I am sorting on a field that has null
value for some documents. "Order by" in sql does work on such fields and I
think it puts all results with null values at the end of the list. Shouldn't
lucene also do the same thing instead o
Hi all,
I am getting null pointer exception when I am sorting on a field that has null
value for some documents. "Order by" in sql does work on such fields and I
think it puts all results with null values at the end of the list. Shouldn't
lucene also do the same thing instead o
2004 10:21 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: RE: Sorting based on calculations at search time
: I believe you are talking about the boost factor for fields or
documents
: while searching. That does not apply in my case - maybe I am missing a
: point here.
: The weight field I was talking about is
ble search and infact I wrote my own comparators
(IgnoreCaseStringComparator and another custom comparator) and they work
just fine. But I am not sure if this extensible search features helps me in
sorting on tokenized field w/o adding the extra field. For now, I will just
go for the extra field
On Dec 13, 2004, at 2:22 PM, Praveen Peddi wrote:
If its not added to the release code already, is there any reason for
it being not added.
As noted, there is a performance issue with sorting by tokenized
fields. It would seem far more advisable for you to simply add another
field used for
If its not added to the release code already, is there any reason for it
being not added. Seems like many people agree that this is an important
functionality of sorting.
Its just that I can't get permission to use customized libraries in our
company. Either we have to use the library as
The patch is very simple.
What is does is it checks if the field you want to sort on is tokenized. If
it is it loads the values from the documents to the sorting table.
The only con in this approach is that loading the values this way is much
slower than if the values where Keywords, but other
Hi all,
I forwarding the same email I sent before. Just wanted to try my luck again
:).
Thanks in advance.
Praveen
- Original Message -
From: "Praveen Peddi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lucene Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2
: I believe you are talking about the boost factor for fields or documents
: while searching. That does not apply in my case - maybe I am missing a
: point here.
: The weight field I was talking about is only for the calculation
Otis is suggesting that you set the boost of the document to be your
ECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 3:13 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Sorting based on calculations at search time
Guru (I thought my first name was OK until now),
Have you tried using boosts for that? You can boost individual Document
Fields when indexing, and/or you can
. The
> search results can run into thousands of documents. Though finally I
> may
> need only the top X number of documents, I wouldn't know what the top
> X
> would be until I perform this calculation and sort it.
> The obvious way is to do a post processing of the hits
ents, I wouldn't know what the top X
would be until I perform this calculation and sort it.
The obvious way is to do a post processing of the hits iterator,
storing it in memory, performing this calculation and sorting it. Is
there any other bette
n what the path does? I am trying to
understand what exactly changed but could not figrue out.
Praveen
- Original Message -
From: "Aviran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Lucene Users List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 2:30 PM
Sub
10, 2004 13:53 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: sorting tokenized field
On Dec 10, 2004, at 1:40 PM, Praveen Peddi wrote:
> I read that the tokenised fields cannot be sorted. In order to sort
> tokenized field, either the application has to duplicate field with
> diff name and not
ssage -
From: "Erik Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lucene Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: sorting tokenized field
On Dec 10, 2004, at 1:40 PM, Praveen Peddi wrote:
I read that the tokenised fields cannot be sort
re of this? Are there any plans of
putting this functionality built into lucene?
It would be wasteful for Lucene to assume any field you add should be
available for sorting.
Adding one more line to your indexing code to accommodate your sorting
needs seems a pretty small price to pay. Do you
I read that the tokenised fields cannot be sorted. In order to sort tokenized
field, either the application has to duplicate field with diff name and not
tokenize it or come up with something else. But shouldn't the search engine
takecare of this? Are there any plans of putting this functionalit
value to sort by. I think you should get an
error when sorting by a field with duplicate values though.
Again, it would be most helpful if you could provide code that
demonstrates what you're doing during indexing and searching
specifically related to the sorting issue.
List
Subject: Re: Sorting in Lucene
Ramon,
More details would be most helpful in being able to assist. You said
you cannot sort - but you did not tell us what error you're getting.
Are you indexing multiple keyword fields by the same name for a single
document?
As for searching - dependi
a match. I tried the search using LIMO and LUKE.
It seems like untokenized field are not searchable.
Thanks,
Ramon
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:04 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: RE: Sorting in Lucene
Since it&#x
2004 4:14 PM
> To: 'Lucene Users List'
> Subject: RE: Sorting in Lucene
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
> Yes I tried to search with the exact string stored on the index but
I
> don't
> get a match. I tried the search using LIMO and LUKE.
>
> It
esday, December 07, 2004 4:04 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: RE: Sorting in Lucene
Since it's untokenized, are you searching with the exact string stored
in the field?
Chuck
> -Original Message-
> From: Ramon Aseniero [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, Decemb
Since it's untokenized, are you searching with the exact string stored
in the field?
Chuck
> -Original Message-
> From: Ramon Aseniero [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 3:29 PM
> To: 'Lucene Users List'; 'Chris Frasche
I also tried searching the said field on LIMO and I don’t get a match.
Thanks,
Ramon
-Original Message-
From: Ramon Aseniero [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 3:20 PM
To: 'Lucene Users List'; 'Chris Fraschetti'
Subject: RE: Sorting in Lucene
List
Subject: Re: Sorting in Lucene
I would try 'luke' to look at your index and use it's search
functionality to make sure it's now your code that is the problem, as
well as to ensure your document is appearing in the index as you
intend it. It's been a lifesaver for m
I would try 'luke' to look at your index and use it's search
functionality to make sure it's now your code that is the problem, as
well as to ensure your document is appearing in the index as you
intend it. It's been a lifesaver for me.
http://www.getopt.org/luke/
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 15:02:26 -0
Hi All,
Any idea why a Keyword field is not searchable? On my index I have a field
of type Keyword but I could not somehow search on the field.
Thanks in advance.
Ramon
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.7 -
Erik Hatcher wrote:
I covered sorting pretty extensively in the
upcoming Lucene in Action book. The source code for
the book will be freely available from http://www.manning.com/hatcher2
in the near future. The electronic book should be available in the next
few weeks or less and the
Also, I covered sorting pretty extensively in the
upcoming Lucene in Action book. The source code for
the book will be freely available from http://www.manning.com/hatcher2
in the near future. The electronic book should be available in the
next few weeks or less and the physical book will
Hi chuck,
Thanks a lot this is really helpful.
Thanks,
Ramon
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 10:05 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: RE: Sorting in Lucene.
Ramon,
I'm not sure where a guide or tutorial might be
Ramon,
I'm not sure where a guide or tutorial might be, but you should be able
to see how to do it from the javadoc. Look at classes Sort, SortField,
SortComparator. I've also included a recent message from this group
below concerning sorting with multiple fields. FYI, a number of p
Hi Chuck,
Can you please point me to some articles or FAQ about Sorting in Lucene?
Thanks a lot for your reply.
Thanks,
Ramon
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:44 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: RE: Sorting in
Yes, by one or multiple criteria.
Chuck
> -Original Message-
> From: Ramon Aseniero [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 6:21 PM
> To: 'Lucene Users List'
> Subject: Sorting in Lucene.
>
> Hi All,
>
>
&
Hi All,
Does Lucene supports sorting on the search results?
Thanks in advance.
Ramon
an only get it to sort by one or the other... but when it does one,
> > it does sort correctly, but together in {score, custom_field} only the
> > first sort seems to apply.
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> Are you using Lucene 1.4.2? How did you index your integer field? A
you index your integer field? Are
you simply using the .toString() of an Integer? Or zero padding the
field somehow? You can use the .toString method, but you have to be
sure that the sorting code does the right parsing of it - so you might
need to specify SortField.INT as its type. It will do
s a float value and
it's hardly ever the same for two documents (unless you use very short
test documents), so that's why the second field may not be used for
sorting.
regards
Daniel
--
http://www.danielnaber.de
I mailed on this a while back, but am still at a loss.
Has anyone had any luck using lucene's built in sort functions to sort
first by the lucene hit score and secondarily by a Field in each
document indexed as Keyword and in integer form?
I can only get it to sort by one or the other... but when
On Monday 18 October 2004 23:39, Angelov, Rossen wrote:
> Is there any workaround for sorting on tokenized fields?
Just save the field a second time under a different name and use
Field.Keyword() for that. Then you can use it for sorting, and still use
the original field for search
Yes, the headline is represented by regular words separated with spaces. I
guess, this can be considered tokenized.
I even didn't think this may cause problems. I'll check the API
documentation.
Is there any workaround for sorting on tokenized fields?
Ross
-Original Message
On Monday 18 October 2004 21:25, Angelov, Rossen wrote:
> The
> first one represents date in format mmddMMHHSS and the second one
> are the article headlines.
The headlines are probably tokenized, right? Sorting then won't work, I
think the API documentation contains some deta
Hi,
I read the "sorting and score ordering -
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg09775.html"
thread from the archive and I think, I have a very similar problem but I
still don't understand how the sorting is supposed to work if there are
multiple fields given to
I've added the raw lucene source to my IDE and have attempted to debug
the sorting portion of lucene... which has given me a better insight,
but I still do not quite understand how lucene's sorting works. From
what I can tell, a search sorted by the score and a field of my
choosing.
i create a sort with the sortfield array of score,rank gives me the
identical results to only sorting on score. BUT a sort of rank only
does sort by rank.
-Chris
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:49:12 -0400, Erik Hatcher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2004, at 4:40 PM, Chris Fraschetti wr
On Oct 14, 2004, at 4:40 PM, Chris Fraschetti wrote:
If I print the different hit score for each doc, they are the same..
but the secondary sorting still does not take affect. is it possible
that even though the float returned to me and i print out, internally
has even more precision and they are
If I print the different hit score for each doc, they are the same..
but the secondary sorting still does not take affect. is it possible
that even though the float returned to me and i print out, internally
has even more precision and they are indeed not the same? I'm getting
ready to edi
SortField[] sort_fields = {score_sort, rank_sort};
> > Sort sort = new Sort(sort_fields);
> > hits = searcher.search(query, sort);
> >
> > I get the same results as I did with the score_sort only... no change
> > in the ordering of the rank is there... any ideas? It l
, sort);
I get the same results as I did with the score_sort only... no change
in the ordering of the rank is there... any ideas? It looks to me as
if it's completely ignoring it.
This is sorting first by score and then by your rank field. The rank
field sort only applies when the scores are the
If i do the following...
SortField score_sort = ScoreField.FIELD_SCORE;
Sort sort = new Sort(score_sort);
hits = searcher.search(query, sort);
I get the results orderd by the lucene score.
also, if i do...
SortField rank_sort = new SortField(RANK_FIELD, true);
Sort sort = new Sort(rank_sort);
h
Use SortField.FIELD_SCORE as the first element in the SortField[] when you
pass it to sort method.
Praveen
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Fraschetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lucene Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Will do.
My other question was: the 'score' for a page as far as I know, is
only accessible post-search... and is not contained in a field. How
can I specift the score as a sort field when there is no field 'score'
?
-Chris
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:06:14 +0200, Daniel Naber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
On Wednesday 13 October 2004 20:44, Chris Fraschetti wrote:
> I haven't seen an example on how to apply two sorts to a search.. can
> you help me out with that?
Check out the documentation for Sort(SortField[] fields) and SortField.
Regards
Daniel
--
http://www.danielnaber.de
---
Paul Elschot wrote:
Along with that, is there a simple way to assign a new scorer to the
searcher? So I can use the same lucene algorithm for my hits, but
tweak it a little to fit my needs?
There is no one to one relationship between a seacher and a scorer.
But you can use a different Similarity i
I haven't seen an example on how to apply two sorts to a search.. can
you help me out with that?
-Chris
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:03:05 +0200, Daniel Naber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 October 2004 19:53, Chris Fraschetti wrote:
>
> > Is there a way I can (without recompiling) ...
On Wednesday 13 October 2004 19:53, Chris Fraschetti wrote:
> Is there a way I can (without recompiling) ... make the score have
> priority and then my sort take affect when two results have the same
> rank?
>
> Along with that, is there a simple way to assign a new scorer to the
> searcher? So I c
On Wednesday 13 October 2004 19:53, Chris Fraschetti wrote:
> Is there a way I can (without recompiling) ... make the score have
> priority and then my sort take affect when two results have the same
> rank?
You can just (explicitly) sort by score and use some other field as a
second sort key.
sorted set over all your results as
> opposed to sorting the most relevant results.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Nader Henein
>
> Chris Fraschetti wrote:
>
> >If I use a Sort instance on my searcher, what will have priority?
> >Score or Sort? Assuming I have a pa
As far as my testing showed, the sort will take priority, because it's
basically an opt-in sort as opposed to the defaulted score sort. So
you're basically displaying a sorted set over all your results as
opposed to sorting the most relevant results.
Hope this helps
Nader He
If I use a Sort instance on my searcher, what will have priority?
Score or Sort? Assuming I have a pages with .9, .9, and .5 scores, ...
if the .5 has a higher 'sort' value, will it return higher than one of
the .9 lucene score values if they are lower?
--
When you index the keyword field (for sort), you'll probably need to lower
case the term before indexing.
-Original Message-
From: Daly, Pete [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 7:38 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: RE: Sorting on a long string
> How
by using Keyword instead of Text. I am indexing
people's name, which are searched on my partial name quite a bit. Can a
Keyword consisting of more than one "word" be searched on just as well as a
"Text" field, or do I need to index both ways in order to keep functionality
with sorting ability?
Thanks all for your help,
-Pete
Sort) order is by
score (also called relevance). Nothing random about it at all. In
fact, this ordering is very special! See the Javadocs on the
Similarity class for details of the formula.
Are their known limitations in the sorting functionality that I am
running
into? I can provide more detai
-Original Message-
From: Daly, Pete [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 15:46 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Sorting on a long string
I am new to lucene, and trying to perform a sorted query on a list of
people's names. Lucene seem unable to properly sort on the
t few
iterations through the sort loop are not being done. The records are
obviously not in the normally random order, but not fully sorted either. I
have tried different ways of sorting, including a SortField array/object
with the field cast as a string.
The index I am sorting has about 1.2 million docu
On Sep 27, 2004, at 6:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm interested in doing sorting in Lucene. Is there a FAQ or an
article that
will show me how to do this? I already have my indexing and searching
working.
From IndexSearcher, use search(Query,Sort) method (or other variants
that t
I'm interested in doing sorting in Lucene. Is there a FAQ or an article that
will show me how to do this? I already have my indexing and searching working.
Thanks!
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For addit
Wermus Fernando wrote:
Luceners,
My app is creating, updating and deleting from the index and searching
too. I need some information about sorting by a field. Does any one
could send me a link related to sorting?
http://jakarta.apache.org/lucene/docs/api/org/apache/lucene/search/Sort.html
Luceners,
My app is creating, updating and deleting from the index and searching
too. I need some information about sorting by a field. Does any one
could send me a link related to sorting?
Thanks in advance.
You can create a new field which contains the full untokened string and use
it as a sort field.
-Original Message-
From: Florian Sauvin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 20:13 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Sorting on tokenized fields
I see in the Javadoc that
I see in the Javadoc that it is only possible to sort on fields that
are not tokenized, I have two questions about that:
1) What happens if the field is tokenized, is sorting done anyway,
using the first term only?
2) Is there a way to do some sorting anyway, by concatenating all the
tokens
the first token of the title and using it just for the
sake of sorting. Does anyone see any problem with it? This solution saves
atleast some memory, compared to the other solution.
Praveen
- Original Message -
From: "John Moylan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lucen
Hi,
You just need to have another title field that is not tokenized - for
sorting purposes.
Best,
John
On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 15:15, Praveen Peddi wrote:
> Hello all,
> Now that lucene 1.4 rc3 has sorting functionality built in, I am adding sorting
> functionality to our searchin
Hello all,
Now that lucene 1.4 rc3 has sorting functionality built in, I am adding sorting
functionality to our searching. Before posting any question to this mailing list, I
have been going thru most of the email responses in this mailing list related to
sorting. I have found that I cannot
Hello,
A while back I implemented a general purposoe document sorting mechanism using cached
document ids (similar to SortBean). This was before sorting was added to lucene. I
am trying to extend this mechanism to allow incremental updates to the cache when new
content is loaded or deleted
oach.
3. DOCUMENT URLS
Is the URL at which the original document can be retrieved generally
(i.e.,
for linking search results to the original doc) stored as a non-index,
non-tokenized, stored Field in the Document?
It depends on whether you want to query for it or not. Field.Keyword
if you want
single index and tagged
with a "locale" field? Or is there another approach altogether?
3. DOCUMENT URLS
Is the URL at which the original document can be retrieved generally (i.e.,
for linking search results to the original doc) stored as a non-index,
non-tokenized, stored Field in the
On May 6, 2004, at 4:34 PM, Ryan Sonnek wrote:
I've been searching around for information on how to sort a lucene
search. could someone point me in the right direction?
Sorting is only available in the latest CVS builds of Lucene and the
1.4 RC releases.
The best source of information o
I've been searching around for information on how to sort a lucene search. could
someone point me in the right direction?
Ryan
Robert Koberg wrote:
Ah. Great - thanks! I see you added it to the wiki. Thanks again :)
I guess you mean
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-lucene/IndexingDateFields
Thanks as well
Michi
This is perfect in my case since iso8601 is in the format:
2004-04-27T01:23:33
Luckily so far, from my lo
Erik Hatcher wrote:
On Apr 27, 2004, at 3:41 PM, Robert Koberg wrote:
Oops, I meant to write DateField.timeToString which I use when
querying. If I use DateField.dateToString when indexing but
timeToString when searching is that a bad practice? I do only need
month, day and year. So should I b
On Apr 27, 2004, at 3:41 PM, Robert Koberg wrote:
Oops, I meant to write DateField.timeToString which I use when
querying. If I use DateField.dateToString when indexing but
timeToString when searching is that a bad practice? I do only need
month, day and year. So should I be indexing with timeTo
Erik Hatcher wrote:
On Apr 27, 2004, at 2:09 PM, Robert Koberg wrote:
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Because having small time units like milliseconds will result in Range
query expanding to a large number of BooleanQueries, if you have a lot
of documents with unique time stamps. Rounding the timestam
On Apr 27, 2004, at 2:09 PM, Robert Koberg wrote:
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Because having small time units like milliseconds will result in Range
query expanding to a large number of BooleanQueries, if you have a lot
of documents with unique time stamps. Rounding the timestamp to
minutes, hours, o
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Because having small time units like milliseconds will result in Range
query expanding to a large number of BooleanQueries, if you have a lot
of documents with unique time stamps. Rounding the timestamp to
minutes, hours, or days, can drastically reduce the number of uniqu
Because having small time units like milliseconds will result in Range
query expanding to a large number of BooleanQueries, if you have a lot
of documents with unique time stamps. Rounding the timestamp to
minutes, hours, or days, can drastically reduce the number of unique
time stamps, hence resu
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Beware of storing timestamps (DateFields, I guess) in Lucene, if you
intend to use range queries (xxx TO yyy).
Why?
We have attributes that contain iso8601 date strings and when indexing:
Date date = isoConv.parse(value, new ParsePosition(0));
String dateString = DateFiel
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
