Re: Trie Date question
Thanks for the reply Yonik! I'm using the nightly from 2009-08-20, so its a rather fresh build. And by comparing the schema with the one im using now I had made a mistake when defining the field. By examining the most recent build, i noticed that the normal date field is defined as follows: fieldType name=date class=solr.TrieDateField omitNorms=true precisionStep=0 positionIncrementGap=0/ (its actually a TrieDateField? does this mean that we are moving away from the standard SolrDateField ?) and that the tdate is specified as follows: fieldType name=tdate class=solr.TrieDateField omitNorms=true precisionStep=6 positionIncrementGap=0/ I'll update my schema definitions and reindex:) Guess that pretty much will solve my problems. Thanks! Aleks On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.comwrote: I can't reproduce any problem. Are you using a recent nightly build? See the example schema of a recent nightly build for the correct way to define a Trie based field - the article / blog may be out of date. Here's what I used to test the example data: http://localhost:8983/solr/select?q=manufacturedate_dt:[NOW/DAY-4YEAR%20TO%20NOW/DAY] -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Aleksander Stensbyaleksander.sten...@integrasco.com wrote: Hello everyone, after reading Grant's article about TrieRange capabilities on the lucid blog I did some experimenting, but I have some trouble with the tdate type and I was hoping that you guys could point me in the right direction. So, basically I index a regular solr date field and use that for sorting and range queries today. For experimenting I added tdate field, indexing it with the same data as in my other date field, but I'm obviously doing something wrong here, because the results coming back are completely different... the definitions in my schema: field name=datetime type=date indexed=true stored=false omitNorms=true/ field name=tdatetime type=tdate indexed=true stored=false/ so if I do a query on my test index: q=datetime:[NOW/DAY-1YEAR TO NOW/DAY] i get numFound=1031524 (don't worry about the ordering yet).. then, if I do the following on my trie date field: q=tdatetime:[NOW/DAY-1YEAR TO NOW/DAY] i get numFound=0 Where did I go wrong? (And yes, both fields are indexed with the exactly same data...) Thanks for any guidance here! Cheers, Aleks -- Aleksander M. Stensby Lead Software Developer and System Architect Integrasco A/S www.integrasco.com http://twitter.com/Integrasco http://facebook.com/Integrasco Please consider the environment before printing all or any of this e-mail -- Aleksander M. Stensby Lead Software Developer and System Architect Integrasco A/S www.integrasco.com http://twitter.com/Integrasco http://facebook.com/Integrasco Please consider the environment before printing all or any of this e-mail
Re: Trie Date question
Hmm, seems I was one day too early with my nightly then:p Quote from Chris (2009-08-20 17:04): i changed it to be manufacturedate_dt since that fits with the existing scheme ... the data is all made up, but so is all hte rest of our data. seems like lucene.apache.org is down at the moment but will try out the new example data once its back up again then, because even though I changed my schema definitions, the two fields still gives back different results... :( I'll keep you updated. - Aleks On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Aleksander Stensby aleksander.sten...@integrasco.com wrote: Thanks for the reply Yonik! I'm using the nightly from 2009-08-20, so its a rather fresh build. And by comparing the schema with the one im using now I had made a mistake when defining the field. By examining the most recent build, i noticed that the normal date field is defined as follows: fieldType name=date class=solr.TrieDateField omitNorms=true precisionStep=0 positionIncrementGap=0/ (its actually a TrieDateField? does this mean that we are moving away from the standard SolrDateField ?) and that the tdate is specified as follows: fieldType name=tdate class=solr.TrieDateField omitNorms=true precisionStep=6 positionIncrementGap=0/ I'll update my schema definitions and reindex:) Guess that pretty much will solve my problems. Thanks! Aleks On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.comwrote: I can't reproduce any problem. Are you using a recent nightly build? See the example schema of a recent nightly build for the correct way to define a Trie based field - the article / blog may be out of date. Here's what I used to test the example data: http://localhost:8983/solr/select?q=manufacturedate_dt:[NOW/DAY-4YEAR%20TO%20NOW/DAY] -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Aleksander Stensbyaleksander.sten...@integrasco.com wrote: Hello everyone, after reading Grant's article about TrieRange capabilities on the lucid blog I did some experimenting, but I have some trouble with the tdate type and I was hoping that you guys could point me in the right direction. So, basically I index a regular solr date field and use that for sorting and range queries today. For experimenting I added tdate field, indexing it with the same data as in my other date field, but I'm obviously doing something wrong here, because the results coming back are completely different... the definitions in my schema: field name=datetime type=date indexed=true stored=false omitNorms=true/ field name=tdatetime type=tdate indexed=true stored=false/ so if I do a query on my test index: q=datetime:[NOW/DAY-1YEAR TO NOW/DAY] i get numFound=1031524 (don't worry about the ordering yet).. then, if I do the following on my trie date field: q=tdatetime:[NOW/DAY-1YEAR TO NOW/DAY] i get numFound=0 Where did I go wrong? (And yes, both fields are indexed with the exactly same data...) Thanks for any guidance here! Cheers, Aleks -- Aleksander M. Stensby Lead Software Developer and System Architect Integrasco A/S www.integrasco.com http://twitter.com/Integrasco http://facebook.com/Integrasco Please consider the environment before printing all or any of this e-mail -- Aleksander M. Stensby Lead Software Developer and System Architect Integrasco A/S www.integrasco.com http://twitter.com/Integrasco http://facebook.com/Integrasco Please consider the environment before printing all or any of this e-mail -- Aleksander M. Stensby Lead Software Developer and System Architect Integrasco A/S E-mail: aleksander.sten...@integrasco.com Tel.: +47 41 22 82 72 www.integrasco.com http://twitter.com/Integrasco http://facebook.com/Integrasco Please consider the environment before printing all or any of this e-mail
Trie Date question
Hello everyone, after reading Grant's article about TrieRange capabilities on the lucid blog I did some experimenting, but I have some trouble with the tdate type and I was hoping that you guys could point me in the right direction. So, basically I index a regular solr date field and use that for sorting and range queries today. For experimenting I added tdate field, indexing it with the same data as in my other date field, but I'm obviously doing something wrong here, because the results coming back are completely different... the definitions in my schema: field name=datetime type=date indexed=true stored=false omitNorms=true/ field name=tdatetime type=tdate indexed=true stored=false/ so if I do a query on my test index: q=datetime:[NOW/DAY-1YEAR TO NOW/DAY] i get numFound=1031524 (don't worry about the ordering yet).. then, if I do the following on my trie date field: q=tdatetime:[NOW/DAY-1YEAR TO NOW/DAY] i get numFound=0 Where did I go wrong? (And yes, both fields are indexed with the exactly same data...) Thanks for any guidance here! Cheers, Aleks -- Aleksander M. Stensby Lead Software Developer and System Architect Integrasco A/S www.integrasco.com http://twitter.com/Integrasco http://facebook.com/Integrasco Please consider the environment before printing all or any of this e-mail
Re: Trie Date question
I can't reproduce any problem. Are you using a recent nightly build? See the example schema of a recent nightly build for the correct way to define a Trie based field - the article / blog may be out of date. Here's what I used to test the example data: http://localhost:8983/solr/select?q=manufacturedate_dt:[NOW/DAY-4YEAR%20TO%20NOW/DAY] -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Aleksander Stensbyaleksander.sten...@integrasco.com wrote: Hello everyone, after reading Grant's article about TrieRange capabilities on the lucid blog I did some experimenting, but I have some trouble with the tdate type and I was hoping that you guys could point me in the right direction. So, basically I index a regular solr date field and use that for sorting and range queries today. For experimenting I added tdate field, indexing it with the same data as in my other date field, but I'm obviously doing something wrong here, because the results coming back are completely different... the definitions in my schema: field name=datetime type=date indexed=true stored=false omitNorms=true/ field name=tdatetime type=tdate indexed=true stored=false/ so if I do a query on my test index: q=datetime:[NOW/DAY-1YEAR TO NOW/DAY] i get numFound=1031524 (don't worry about the ordering yet).. then, if I do the following on my trie date field: q=tdatetime:[NOW/DAY-1YEAR TO NOW/DAY] i get numFound=0 Where did I go wrong? (And yes, both fields are indexed with the exactly same data...) Thanks for any guidance here! Cheers, Aleks -- Aleksander M. Stensby Lead Software Developer and System Architect Integrasco A/S www.integrasco.com http://twitter.com/Integrasco http://facebook.com/Integrasco Please consider the environment before printing all or any of this e-mail
