Hi Nathan,

We had a similiar problem but with a numeric field and we had solved
it by keeping both start and end range as one multivalued field. Then
your first query will get you the desired results.

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 2:52 AM, Nathan Woodhull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, it doesn't. This does not take care of documents that extend
>  beyond the bounds of the current 30 day window... which are relevant
>  even though both the start and end are not within the range.
>
>  For instance: A document with a start_date of 1/1/08 and an end_date
>  of 3/1/08 should still match for a search of the range 2/1/08 to
>  2/2/08.
>
>
>
>  -Nathan
>
>  On 3/17/08, Nathan Woodhull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > Nevermind, this is actually easy:
>  >
>  >  StartDate: [NOW TO NOW+30DAY] AND EndDate: [NOW TO NOW+30DAY]
>  >
>  >
>  >  -Nathan
>  >
>  >
>  >  On 3/17/08, Nathan Woodhull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >  > Hi,
>  >  >
>  >  >  I'm working on an application where the documents in the solr index
>  >  >  might only be relevant to users within a date range. We are storing a
>  >  >  start_date and an end_date in the index for each document that defines
>  >  >  the range for which the document is relevant. These date ranges in the
>  >  >  document might be one day long or an entire season.
>  >  >
>  >  >  We want to allow users to retrieve a list of all documents that will
>  >  >  be relevant in the next 30 days, or combine that restriction with a
>  >  >  search term. If our documents had a single relevant date instead of a
>  >  >  range this would be easy. Its not clear if it is possible for solr to
>  >  >  index and query with a date range and the same time.
>  >  >
>  >  >  The only thing I have been able to come up with is storing the date
>  >  >  range as a single multivalued  field containing a record for each of
>  >  >  the days within the range. This seems inelegant and doesn't really
>  >  >  work well for long date ranges where you would have to store hundreds
>  >  >  of values in the multivalued field. (i'm not even sure if it works, I
>  >  >  figured I would ask the list if there was a better solution before
>  >  >  trying it).
>  >  >
>  >  >  Thanks in advance. Please let me know if I can provide any other
>  >  >  information that might help.
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  -Nathan
>  >  >
>  >
>



-- 
Regards,
Shalin Shekhar Mangar.

Reply via email to