The reason is speed. Lucene uses a different technique to index numeric values (and Dates are also numeric values), so a range query does not need to enumerate all distinct values in the index between the bounds which makes TermRangeQuery very slow.
You can index the UNIX epoch returned by Date#getTime() as LONG. To use a different precision, you can divide the long and index as int (e.g div 86400000 to get full days). Or use techniques like explained in LIA2. Uwe ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > -----Original Message----- > From: Romi [mailto:romijain3...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:08 PM > To: general@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Numeric Range Query > > > I read that for handling date range query NumericRangeQuery is better than > TermRangeQuery in "Lucene in action", But i couldnot find the reason. i want > to know the reason behind it. I used TermRangeQuery and > NumericRangequery both for handling date range query and i found that > searching is fast via NumericRangeQuery. > > My second point is to query using NumericRangeQuery i have to create > indexes using NumericField by which i can create indexes upto milisecond > but what if i want to reduce my resolution upto hour or day. > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Numeric-Range-Query- > tp2005303p2005303.html > Sent from the Lucene - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
