On 6/20/2018 12:35 PM, Yunee Lee wrote:
> I have two questions.
>
> 1. solr index on verion 4.6.0 and there are multiple date fields as the type
> DateField in schema.xml
> When I upgraded to version 5.2.1 with new data type Trie* for integer, float,
> string and date.
>
Hi,
Hi,
I have two questions.
1. solr index on verion 4.6.0 and there are multiple date fields as the type
DateField in schema.xml
When I upgraded to version 5.2.1 with new data type Trie* for integer, float,
string and date.
Only date fields are not upgraded properly with the following
quot;0002-11-30T00:00:00Z",
"_version_":1498568386113699840}]
}}
$ curl
'http://localhost:8983/solr/techproducts/query?q=*:*&fq=bar_i:7&fq=foo_dt:"0002-11-30T00:00:00Z";'
{
"responseHeader":{
"status":0,
"QTime"
Dear Jack,
Hi,
The q parameter is *:* since I just wanted to filter the documents.
Regards.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Jack Krupansky
wrote:
> What does your main query look like? Normally we don't speak of "searching"
> with the fq parameter - it filters the results, but the actual search
What does your main query look like? Normally we don't speak of "searching"
with the fq parameter - it filters the results, but the actual searching is
done via the main query with the q parameter.
-- Jack Krupansky
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Ali Nazemian wrote:
> Dears,
> Hi,
> I have st
Dears,
Hi,
I have strange problem with Solr 4.10.x. My problem is when I do searching
on solr Zero date which is "0002-11-30T00:00:00Z" if more than one filter
be considered, the results became invalid. For example consider this
scenario:
When I search for a document with fq=p_date:"0002-11-30T00:0
Thanks Chris
With Regards
Aman Tandon
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
>
> : I was just trying to index the fields returned by my msql and i found
> this
>
> If you are importing dates from MySql where you have -00-00T00:00:00Z
> as the default value, you should actau
: I was just trying to index the fields returned by my msql and i found this
If you are importing dates from MySql where you have -00-00T00:00:00Z
as the default value, you should actaully be getting an error lsat time i
checked, but this explains the right way to tell the MySQL JDBC driver
giving more details about the "X" so that we can understand the
> full issue. Perhaps the best solution doesn't involve "Y" at all?
> See Also: http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=542341
>
>
>
>
> : Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:09:13 +0530
> : From:
ssue. Perhaps the best solution doesn't involve "Y" at all?
See Also: http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=542341
: Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:09:13 +0530
: From: Aman Tandon
: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
: To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org"
: Subject: iss
Hi,
I wants to set -00-00T00:00:00Z value for date field where I do not
have the value. When the index the at field with value as desired it is
getting indexed as 0002-11-30T00:00:00Z.
What is the reason behind this?
With Regards
Aman Tandon
t;:
> "2014-05-01T20:59:00Z" in solr.
> There are time diifference -3 hours! (For Turkey).
>
> you can see about two captures on the right side.
>
> i hope, someone can help me.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Indexing-DateField-timezone-problem-tp4135079.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
ne is GMT,
> then you will have to manually add that to dates.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> -Original Message- From: hakanbillur
> Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 4:38 AM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Indexing DateField timezone problem
>
> <ht
ope, someone can help me.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Indexing-DateField-timezone-problem-tp4135079.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
quot;:
"2014-05-01T20:59:00Z" in solr.
There are time diifference -3 hours! (For Turkey).
you can see about two captures on the right side.
i hope, someone can help me.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Indexing-DateField-timezone-problem-tp4135079.h
nually add that to dates.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: hakanbillur
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 4:38 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Indexing DateField timezone problem
<http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/file/n4135079/Capture2.png>
<http://lucene.472066
: Response:
: {responseHeader={status=0,QTime=0,params={lowercaseOperators=true,sort=score
:
desc,cache=false,qf=content,wt=javabin,rows=100,defType=edismax,version=2,fl=*,score,start=0,q="White+Paper",stopwords=true,fq=type:"White
:
Paper"}},response={numFound=9,start=0,maxScore=0.61586785,docs
Hi Amit,
I see wt=javabin in the response you pasted. I think with solrJ you there are
two response parsers. javabin and xml. Since there is no jsonparser, Using
plain http client and issuing GET commands would be your bet.
Ahmet
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 12:07 AM, Amit Jha wrote:
Hey H
Hey Hoss,
Thanks for replying back..Here is the response generated by solrj.
*SolrJ Response*: ignore the Braces at It have copied it from big chunk
Response:
{responseHeader={status=0,QTime=0,params={lowercaseOperators=true,sort=score
desc,cache=false,qf=content,wt=javabin,rows=100,defType=e
: We have index where date field have default value as 'NOW'. We are using
: solrj to query solr and when we try to convert query
: response(response.getResponse) to JSON object in java. The JSON
You're going to have to show us some real code, some real data, and a real
error exception that you
I am using it. But timestamp having ":" in between causes the issue. Please
help
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Ahmet Arslan wrote:
> Hi Amit,
>
> If you want json response, Why don't you use wt=json?
>
> Ahmet
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 7:34 AM, Amit Jha
> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> We have
Hi Amit,
If you want json response, Why don't you use wt=json?
Ahmet
On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 7:34 AM, Amit Jha wrote:
Hi,
We have index where date field have default value as 'NOW'. We are using
solrj to query solr and when we try to convert query
response(response.getResponse) to JSON o
Hi,
We have index where date field have default value as 'NOW'. We are using
solrj to query solr and when we try to convert query
response(response.getResponse) to JSON object in java. The JSON
API(org.json) throws 'invalid json string' exception. API say so because
date field value i.e. -mm-
Hi,
"Wish You All a Very Happy New Year".
We have index where date field have default value as 'NOW'. We are using
solrj to query solr and when we try to convert query
response(response.getResponse) to JSON object in java. The JSON
API(org.json) throws 'invalid json string' exception. API say
Figured out the solution.
The datefield in those documents were stored as binary, so what I should do
is
Fieldable df = doc.getFieldable(fname);
byte[] ary = df.getBinaryValue();
ByteBuffer bb = ByteBuffer.wrap(ary);
long num = bb.getLong();
ate dt = DateTools.stringToDate(DateTools.timeToString
ations Developer
> > > >
> > > > o: +1 646 532 3062 | c: +1 917 477 7906
> > > >
> > > > appinions inc.
> > > >
> > > > “The Science of Influence Marketing”
> > > >
> > > > 18 East
2 3062 | c: +1 917 477 7906
> > >
> > > appinions inc.
> > >
> > > “The Science of Influence Marketing”
> > >
> > > 18 East 41st Street
> > >
> > > New York, NY 10017
> > >
> > > t: @appinions <https://twit
inc.
> >
> > “The Science of Influence Marketing”
> >
> > 18 East 41st Street
> >
> > New York, NY 10017
> >
> > t: @appinions <https://twitter.com/Appinions> | g+:
> > plus.google.com/appinions
> > w: appinions.com <http://www.a
; 18 East 41st Street
> >
> > New York, NY 10017
> >
> > t: @appinions <https://twitter.com/Appinions> | g+:
> > plus.google.com/appinions
> > w: appinions.com <http://www.appinions.com/>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at
Street
>
> New York, NY 10017
>
> t: @appinions <https://twitter.com/Appinions> | g+:
> plus.google.com/appinions
> w: appinions.com <http://www.appinions.com/>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Mingfeng Yang >wrote:
>
> > I have an index firs
t; 18 East 41st Street
>
> New York, NY 10017
>
> t: @appinions <https://twitter.com/Appinions> | g+:
> plus.google.com/appinions
> w: appinions.com <http://www.appinions.com/>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Mingfeng Yang >wrote:
>
> > I have an index
us.google.com/appinions
w: appinions.com <http://www.appinions.com/>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Mingfeng Yang wrote:
> I have an index first built with solr1.4 and later upgraded to solr3.6,
> which has 150million documents, and all docs have a datefield which are not
> blank
I have an index first built with solr1.4 and later upgraded to solr3.6,
which has 150million documents, and all docs have a datefield which are not
blank. (verified by solr query).
I am using the following code snippet to retrieve
import org.apache.lucene.index.IndexReader;
import
field.
>>
>> Can anyone help me on this?
>>
>> > dateTimeFormat="-MM-dd'T'hh:mm:ss'Z'" />
>>
>> I searched in this forum and there are discussions on this same problem but
>> on SOLR 1.3, that's why I am posting this query again.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-1-4-1-Indexing-DateField-time-zone-problem-tp1966118p1966118.html
>> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
dateTimeFormat="-MM-dd'T'hh:mm:ss'Z'" />
>
> I searched in this forum and there are discussions on this same problem but
> on SOLR 1.3, that's why I am posting this query again.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-1-4-1-Indexing-DateField-time-zone-problem-tp1966118p1966118.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
ext:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-1-4-1-Indexing-DateField-time-zone-problem-tp1966118p1966118.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
looking for documents relating
...meanwhile someone else might expect that unless the ambiguous date must
be entirely contained within the range being queried on.
If implemented in DateField I guess this behaviour would need to be
configurable.
(your implication of counting once per day would
: I would expect field:2001-03 to be a hit on a partial match such as
: field:[2001-02-28T00:00:00Z TO 2001-03-13T00:00:00Z]. I suppose that my
: expectation would be that field:2001-03 would be counted once per day for each
: day in its range. It would follow that a user looking for documents re
On 6 Oct 09, at 5:31 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
...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.
The power of some of the other formulas in ISO 8601 is that you don't
introduce f
Thanks for making me think about this a little bit deeper, Hoss.
Comments in-line.
Chris Hostetter wrote:
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 s
:My question is why isn't the DateField implementation of ISO 8601 broader
: so that it could include and MM 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
20
> My question is why isn't the DateField implementation of ISO 8601 broader so
> that it could include and MM as acceptable date strings? What would
> it take to do so?
Nobody ever cared? But yes, you're right, the spurious precision is
annoying. However, there
te as a
string CCYYMM where YYMM are optional.
I was hoping to be able to tie this into the DateField type so that
it becomes possible to facet on them without much work and duplication
of data. Unfortunately it requires the "cannonical representation of
dateTime" which means th
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 12:19 AM, George wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've an Oracle DATE column that I want to index with a Solr DateField. The
> part of my schema.xml looks like this:
>
> omitNorms="true"/>
> multiValued="false" />
>
> I use Dat
Hi,
I've an Oracle DATE column that I want to index with a Solr DateField. The
part of my schema.xml looks like this:
I use DataImportHandler. When I do a search, this field is returned with one
day before. Oracle: 2006-12-10. Solr: 2006-12-09T23:00:00Z
If I index it as a String,
On Nov 24, 2008, at 8:03 AM, Peer Allan wrote:
I am trying to update a system that uses solr to use version 1.3,
but have
stumbled across a problem I can’t seem to fix. Solr is throwing
errors on a
date and I don't know why. Here is the request XML:
Movie
1
Movie:1
Napoleon
ve read the release notes for 1.3 and realize there is improved
validation which is probably the source of the new error. I have read the
documentation on the DateField and from what I can tell it the date is in a
valid format. Can anyone tell me what's wrong here? Thanks.
Peer
: my question is what is the purpose of NOW-1DAY,NOW-1HOUR these values.How
: we use the Datefield efficiently.(Or) can we use this filed while searching
: ? (Or) can we pass this parameters while sending query?
expressions like "NOW-1DAY" are just a syntax goodie of DateField tha
Hi,
I created one field name using date field, with default="NOW" .Then
I index many documents.Now
my question is what is the purpose of NOW-1DAY,NOW-1HOUR these values.How
we use the Datefield efficiently.(Or) can we use this filed while searching
? (Or) can we pass this
as the upper bound instead of NOW so it will have the
> same day granularity as the lower bound (good for caching) and won't miss
> things added today.
>
> : Recently I discovered the 'new' DateField syntax options which allow
> : "[NOW/DAY-1MONTH]" type q
+1DAY]
...assuming your goal is to find timestamps in the past month.
i used NOW/DAY+1DAY as the upper bound instead of NOW so it will have the
same day granularity as the lower bound (good for caching) and won't miss
things added today.
: Recently I discovered the 'new' DateField
First off, solr has done nothing but wonders for me! So let me give everyone
envolved a big cheers!
Recently I discovered the 'new' DateField syntax options which allow
"[NOW/DAY-1MONTH]" type querys. However when going to try out this I found a
possible bug (or maybe I'
52 matches
Mail list logo
