lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Hostetter <hossman_luc...@fucit.org>
Subject Re: Why isn't the DateField implementation of ISO 8601 broader?
Date Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:31:31 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

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?

...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.

: would it take to do so?  Are there any work-arounds for faceting by century,
: year, month without creating new fields in my schema?  The last resort would

in can always just index the first date of whatever block of time (month, 
yera, century, etc..) and then facet normally.


-Hoss


Mime
View raw message