On Tuesday 17 August 2004 19:34, Damian Gajda wrote: > That is why I had to move from dates represented > the way Daniel suggests - to decimal integer numbers. This creates very > ugly looking "date" strings but needs only 4bytes per term while > sorting. That IS a memory advantage.
What about using different fields for the date, like "2004-08-17" is indexed as y:2004, m:08, d:17? however, you'd need to build some "interesting" queries for range searches, for example: documents from 2003-10 to 2004-05 query: (+y:2003 +m:[10 TO 12]) (+y:2004 +m:[01 TO 05]) But the number of terms is dramatically reduced. Anyway, I see DateField as a convenience class that's good enough for most, but not all, uses. If we start making it too efficient we introduce those limitation like "no dates before 1970" etc. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
