If the files are static, and never moved to another directory or server, you will be fine, more or less, or not at all. If you have a bunch of documents, and upload them for the first time, they will all have the same Last-Modified time, so that doesn't work.
It also doesn't work well for static HTML. See this blog post [1], it was posted 29th of september, its Last-Modified is 14th of october. The only viable solutions is to grab the date from the content itself. There is an old patch [2] for this you might want to try. 1: http://www.slideshare.net/anshumg/working-with-deeply-nested-documents-in-apache-solr 2: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUTCH-1414 -----Original message----- > From:Tom Chiverton <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday 20th October 2016 8:51 > To: [email protected]; Markus Jelsma <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: Date missing from Solr, even though in HTTP last-modified > > We want users to sort the results by 'recently changed' For static things > like PDF or more or less static HTML (maybe a news item is added a day) this > seemed easy. > What issues have been experienced? > > On 19 October 2016 21:54:28 BST, Markus Jelsma <[email protected]> > wrote: > >Tom - why do you use last-modified at all? In general, it is completely > >unreliable and useless, except for statically served files such as > >documents or media. Very few CMS' (if any) send a correct last-modified > >header for dynamically generated HTML. > > > >If you are using it for boosting, or date filtering, it is usually a > >bad end-user experience. > > > >M. > > > > > >-----Original message----- > >> From:Tom Chiverton <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Wednesday 19th October 2016 10:26 > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Date missing from Solr, even though in HTTP > >last-modified > >> > >> This turned out to be user error - not all pages in the site output a > > > >> last-modified, and those that did hadn't been indexed. > >> > >> Tom > >> > > > >______________________________________________________________________ > >This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud > >service. > >For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com > >______________________________________________________________________ > > -- > Tom Chiverton > Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
