You're both correct, after changing the type for tstamp and lastModified from long to date, no error anymore.
Next thing I need to do is setup cygwin/svn to be able to get fresh svn/trunch code...it's so cool to be up-to-date. Nutch-1.4 is just ridiculously faster than 1.2 :-) Thanks!! Remi On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Markus Jelsma <markus.jel...@openindex.io>wrote: > That was likely an old schema. In trunk (or was it already in1.4) it is of > type date. > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/nutch/trunk/conf/schema.xml?view=markup > > > Remi, I had a similar problem but for a custom field that I was trying to > > post to Solr (via solrindex) as a type="date" in the schema.xml. Turns > out > > my date string was formatted incorrectly (it was missing the trailing Z). > > From the error message it appears that perhaps the field into which this > > field is going in is set as long or int. If you set it to type="date" it > > should take it (and you can do Solr's date arithmetic on it. > > > > On Feb 15, 2012, at 11:01 AM, remi tassing wrote: > > > Awesome! > > > > > > Pushing this to Solr gives me an error (solrindex): > > > SEVERE: java.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: > > > "2012-02-08T14:40:09.416Z" > > > > > > at java.lang.NumberFormatException.forInputString(Unknown > Source) > > > > > > But I'll try to figure this out on my own > > > > > > I really appreciate your help! > > > > > > Remi > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Markus Jelsma > > > > > > <markus.jel...@openindex.io>wrote: > > >> sure, use the indexchecker tool. > > >> > > >>> Is it any quick way to see the impact of index-more? I deleted the > > >>> parse related folders in the segment and re-parsed it but when I > > >>> readseg there > > >> > > >> is > > >> > > >>> no.difference.... > > >>> > > >>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > > >>> > > >>> lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:00 PM, remi tassing < > tassingr...@gmail.com> > > >>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>> tstamp shows a string of digits like 20020123123212 > > >>>> > > >>>> This is OK. yyyy-mm-dd-hh-mm-ssZ It is however hellishly old ! > > >>>> > > >>>>> Never heard of the plugin "index-more" and it's poorly documented. > > >>>> > > >>>> Well it's been included in 1.2 onwards so I'm very surprised @ that. > > >>>> If > > >>> > > >>> you > > >>> > > >>>> feel like it then please feel free to add documentation, this is > > >>>> always something we are after and would be a great help to the > > >>>> community. > > >>>> > > >>>> After > > >>>> > > >>>>> adding this to plugins.include, I'll need to run solrindex or is it > > >>>>> necessary to re-parse or recrawl (I think this less likely IMO)? > > >>>> > > >>>> If you wish to have the fields we are able to extract with > index-more > > >>>> e.g. > > >>>> > > >>>> <!-- fields for index-more plugin --> 81 <field name="type" > > >>>> type="string" stored="true" indexed="true" 82 multiValued="true"/> > > >>>> 83 <field name="contentLength" type="long" stored="true" 84 > > >>>> indexed="false"/> 85 > > >>> > > >>> <field > > >>> > > >>>> name="lastModified" type="long" stored="true" 86 indexed="true"/> > 87 > > >>> > > >>> <field > > >>> > > >>>> name="date" type="string" stored="true" indexed="true"/> > > >>>> then you'll need to add the plugin, I would rebuild the project if > it > > >> > > >> is > > >> > > >>>> possible but this is not essential, then index your content. And > yes I > > >>>> would expect the parsers need to be re-run to extract the > lastModified > > >>>> value from pages. >
