: That sounds quite reasonable indeed. But i don't understand why Solr doesn't
: throw an exception when i actually index a string in a long fieldType while i
: do remember getting some number formatting exception when pushing strings to
: an integer fieldType.
:
: With the current set up i ca
> : Any thoughts on this one? Why does Solr output a string in a long field
> : with XMLResponseWriter but fails doing so (as it should) with the
> : javabin format?
>
> performance.
>
> the XML Response writer doesn't make any attempt to validate data from
> the index on the way out, the stored
: Any thoughts on this one? Why does Solr output a string in a long field with
: XMLResponseWriter but fails doing so (as it should) with the javabin format?
performance.
the XML Response writer doesn't make any attempt to validate data from
the index on the way out, the stored value in the in
Any thoughts on this one? Why does Solr output a string in a long field with
XMLResponseWriter but fails doing so (as it should) with the javabin format?
On Tuesday 19 April 2011 10:52:33 Markus Jelsma wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Nutch 1.3-dev seems to have changed its tstamp field from a long to a
> prope
Hi,
Nutch 1.3-dev seems to have changed its tstamp field from a long to a properly
formatted Solr readable date/time but the example Solr schema for Nutch still
configures the tstamp field as a long. This results in a formatted date/time
in a long field, which i think should not be allowed in t
