Thanks for making me think about this a little bit deeper, Hoss.
Comments in-line.
Chris Hostetter wrote:
because those would be ambiguous. if you just indexed field:2001-03 would
you expect it to match field:[2001-02-28T00:00:00Z TO
2001-03-13T00:00:00Z] ... what about date faceting, what should the
counts be if you facet per day?
I would expect field:2001-03 to be a hit on a partial match such as
field:[2001-02-28T00:00:00Z TO 2001-03-13T00:00:00Z]. I suppose that my
expectation would be that field:2001-03 would be counted once per day
for each day in its range. It would follow that a user looking for
documents relating to 1919 might also be interested in 1910. But
conversely a user looking for documents relating to 1919 might really
only want documents specifically related to 1919. Maybe the
implementation would be smart (or configurable) about precision so that
it wouldn't be counted when the precision asked to be represented by
facets had more significant figures that the indexed/stored value.
Maybe there would be another facet category at each precision for
"others" -- the documents that have less precision than the current date
facet precision. I'm envisioning a hierarchical system that starts
general with century with click-throughs drilling down eventually to days.
...your expectations may be different then everyone elses. by requiring
that the dates be explicit there is no ambiguity, you are in control of
the behavior.
I can see your point but surely there are others out there with non
explicit data regarding dates out there? Does my use case makes sense
to anyone else?
in can always just index the first date of whatever block of time (month,
yera, century, etc..) and then facet normally.
Until a better solution presents itself we've gone the route of creating
more fields for faceting on different blocks of time. So fields for
century, decade, year, month, and day will let us facet on each of these
time periods as needed. Documents with dates with less precision will
not show up in date facets with more precision. I was hoping there was
an elegant hack for faceting on prefix of a defined number of characters
(prefix=*, prefix=**, prefix=***, ...) without having to explicitly
specify ..., prefix=188, prefix=189, prefix=190, prefix=191, ...
Regards,
Tricia
