lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Matheis <ste...@mathe.is>
Subject Re: Atomic Update w/ Date Copy Field
Date Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:25:34 GMT
To me, it sounds more like you shouldn’t have to care about such gory details as a user -
at all.

would you mind opening a issue on JIRA Todd? Including all the details you already provided
in as well as a link to this thread, would be best.

Depending on what you actually did to find this all out, you probably do even have a test
case at hand which demonstrates the behaviour? if not, that’s obviously not a problem :)

-Stefan


On August 30, 2016 at 3:51:42 PM, Todd Long (longtm@gmail.com) wrote:
> It looks like the issue has to do with the Date object. When the document is
> fully updated (with the date specified) the field is created with a String
> object so everything is indexed as it appears. When the document is
> partially updated (with the date omitted) the field is re-created using the
> previously stored Date object which takes the "toString" representation
> (i.e. EEE MMM dd HH:mm:ss zzz yyyy).
>  
> I ended up creating a DateTextField which extends TextField and simply
> overrides the "FieldType.createField(SchemaField, Object, float)" method. I
> then check for a Date instance and format as necessary.
>  
> Any ideas on a better approach or does it sound like this is the way to go?
> I wasn't sure if this could be accomplished in a filter or some other way.
>  
>  
>  
> --
> View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Atomic-Update-w-Date-Copy-Field-tp4293779p4293968.html
 
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>  


Mime
View raw message