-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Shawn,
On 4/15/18 4:49 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > On 4/15/2018 2:31 PM, Christopher Schultz wrote: >> I'd usually call this a "date", but Solr's documentation says >> that a "date" is what I would call a timestamp (including time >> zone). > > That is correct. Lucene dates are accurate to the millisecond. > They don't actually handle timezones the way you might be thinking > -- the information is UTC. When using date rounding (NOW/WEEK, > NOW/DAY, etc) you can tell Solr what the timezone is so that the > boundaries are correct, but the information in the index is UTC. > >> https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/7_3/field-types-included-with-so lr. >> >> html >> >> [ I remember reading but cannot currently seem to find a >> reference page with the actual pre-defined field types Solr ships >> with. That page above lists the class names, but not the aliases >> used by a real Solr installation. > > That info is what you need to define the fieldType in the schema. > So you would put something like "solr.DatePointField" as the > class. What about the "standard" aliases for existing fieldTypes? I remember reading a page where "int" versus "pint" were compared, but I can't seem to find that, now. >> Is there an existing appropriate field type for >> "date-without-time"? > > The answer to this question is not yes, but it's also not no. All > date types in Solr have millisecond precision. Okay, so if I want to have a date-without-timestamp, I'll either need to set all timestamps to 00:00:00 or invent something like pint-encoded-date, right? > But if you use DateRangeField, you can deal with larger time > periods. A query like "2018" actually works. At both query and > index time, the less precise syntax is translated internally to a > *range* before the query or indexing happens. Sounds like wasting a little space with 00:00:00 timestamps is probably the way to go. Even if using pint would be equivalent (and perhaps even a little more efficient), I think using a "real" date field is more appropriate. - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEMmKgYcQvxMe7tcJcHPApP6U8pFgFAlrUoEoACgkQHPApP6U8 pFj4lBAAzBSwzlq/mYpK9KraK3UkRhvDfQY5Tk9UpjaDvigROMks5oaGUybZmYLa 6oIguO+xwrMpYU08X3RCtDMPkJKFxXcQhj4x3zgMj/JM2FaCjgkWMsE1oU+68qKB Ad4HMMqPsmDuG22zcXJWlMLNIfgZk89u2c97Tt/eWvtUYMnZMjT+6CfA43z8JRnM i8ixDaEl7TZVDD3G4YW/cXCQacpIPmynMOH60gng5ylC04nMLCQyvf3zV0WB7X+t JTGEjGmMENJhqVq3PnH6VYjGeSU92c8/bbEf+us1nRkIjayEnA7Uv7L87l56viVY 3jpEvHPjGiluDpTfLRUQzaTvu7PUwL1MefmKYnri9NP+HB2v8AhGN+oCyRI/RM5r hYMTOdyX9VcVOUF3DluWpOCpG9WaJaEfT6ifw6bifNQpWG9lj6B8zxAfGGWRL9dU iOOCBYwDioYaolRz6oIcTny22/mm3SE4IXGkrH9C2U9WU/nUFhWEjqbw4MWF0ten 0RSJ8coj05fsFdA0A1owA2wOqXuJGmaMfNjZiPR05ucgIFaM0MxgIyFzNeMGxKSd aUp5EfrS2EHa23DDgsMF0i7C5KTw/Xlzr0Y+9WWdSlRWtYGvBZThP261lJ/jHmpS FcDsNz4Y5/V2XnNcp0ieD+RoaAMctiehFuzPu9h2awZcF25CGDI= =vaBk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
