Use debugQuery=true to see exactly how the dismax parser sees this query. Also, since this is a binary query, you can use filter queries instead. Those use the Lucene syntax.
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > Right, you need to do the explicit qualification of the date field. > dismax parsing is intended to work with text-type fields, not > numeric or date fields. If you attach &debugQuery=on, you'll > see that your "scanneddate" field is just dropped. > > Furthermore, dismax was never intended to work with range > queries. Note this from the DisMaxQParserPlugin page: > > " extremely simplified subset of the Lucene QueryParser syntax" > > I'll expand on this a bit on the Wiki page. > > > Best > Erick > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Dmitry Kan <dmitry....@gmail.com> wrote: >> unless, something else is wrong, my question would be, if you have the >> documents in solr stamped with these dates? >> also could try for a test specifying the field name directly: >> >> q=scanneddate:["2011-09-22T22:40:30Z" TO "2012-02-02T01:30:52Z"] >> >> also, in your first e-mail you said you have used >> >> [*"2012-02-02T01:30:52Z" TO "2012-02-02T01:30:52Z"*] >> >> with asterisks *, what scanneddate values did you then get? >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:37 PM, ayyappan <ayyaba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> thanks for quick response. >>> >>> I tried your advice . ["2011-09-22T22:40:30Z" TO "2012-02-02T01:30:52Z"] >>> like that even though i am not getting any result . >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/problem-with-date-searching-tp3961761p3961833.html >>> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Dmitry Kan -- Lance Norskog goks...@gmail.com
