Thanks Erick & Ahmet, that helps.
> Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 09:25:11 -0400 > Subject: Re: Solr Terms and Date field issues > From: erickerick...@gmail.com > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > > OK, I'm reaching a little here, but I think it's got a pretty good chance > of being the issue you're seeing. Sure hope somebody jumps > in and corrects me if I'm wrong (hint hint)... > > I haven't delved into the actual Trie code, this is just from looking > with TermsComponent and Luke. Using Solr 1.4.1 BTW. > > What you're seeing it a consequence of the "trie" field type with a > precision step other than 0. Trie fields with precisionstep > 0 add > extra stuff to the index to allow more efficient range queries. A hint > about this is that your 5 documents with the "tdate" type produce > 16 tokens rather than just 5. > > If you try your experiment with the "date" type (which is a trie type with > precisionstep=0) you'll see exactly what you expect. > > So the long and short of it is that Solr's working as expected, and > you can use your index without worrying. But, if you're trying to do > some lower-level term walking, you'll either have to filter stuff out, > copy your dates to something with precisionstep=0 and use that > field or.... > > Best > Erick > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Ahmet Arslan <iori...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > It is okey to see weird things in admin/schema.jsp or terms component with > > trie based types. Please see http://search-lucene.com/m/WEfSI1Yi4562/ > > > > If you really need terms component, consider using copyField (tdate to > > string type) > > > > > > > > > > Please find attached the schema and some test data (test.xml). > > > > Thanks for looking this. > > Viswa > > > > > >> Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 19:08:31 -0400 > >> Subject: Re: Solr Terms and Date field issues > >> From: erickerick...@gmail.com > >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > >> > >> Hmmmm, this is puzzling. If you could come up with a couple of xml > >> files and a schema > >> that illustrate this, I'll see what I can see... > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Erick > >> > >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Viswa S <svis...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > Erik, > >> > > >> > I suspected the same, and setup a test instance to reproduce this. The > >> > date field I used is setup to capture indexing time, in other words the > >> > schema has a default value of "NOW". However, I have reproduced this > >> > issue with fields which do no have defaults too. > >> > > >> > On the second one, I did a delete->commit (with expungeDeletes=true) and > >> > then a optimize. All other fields show updated terms except the date > >> > fields. I have also double checked to see if the Luke handler has any > >> > different terms, and it did not. > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > Viswa > >> > > >> > > >> >> Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 08:17:39 -0400 > >> >> Subject: Re: Solr Terms and Date field issues > >> >> From: erickerick...@gmail.com > >> >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > >> >> > >> >> Hmmm, this *looks* like you've changed your schema without > >> >> re-indexing all your data so you're getting old (string?) values in > >> >> that field, but that's just a guess. If this is really happening on a > >> >> clean index it's a problem. > >> >> > >> >> I'm also going to guess that you're not really deleting the documents > >> >> you think. Are you committing after the deletes? > >> >> > >> >> Best > >> >> Erick > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Viswa S <svis...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > Hello, > >> >> > > >> >> > The terms query for a date field seems to get populated with some > >> >> > weird dates, many of these dates (1970,2009,2011-04-23) are not > >> >> > present in the indexed data. Please see sample data below > >> >> > > >> >> > I also notice that a delete and optimize does not remove the relevant > >> >> > terms for date fields, the string fields seems work fine. > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks > >> >> > Viswa > >> >> > > >> >> > Results from Terms component: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > <int name="2011-05-04T02:01:32.928Z">3479</int> > >> >> > > >> >> > <int name="2011-05-04T02:00:19.2Z">3479</int> > >> >> > > >> >> > <int name="2011-05-03T22:34:58.432Z">3479</int> > >> >> > > >> >> > <int name="2011-04-23T01:36:14.336Z">3479</int> > >> >> > > >> >> > <int name="2009-03-13T13:23:01.248Z">3479</int> > >> >> > > >> >> > <int name="1970-01-01T00:00:00Z">3479</int> > >> >> > > >> >> > <int name="1970-01-01T00:00:00Z">3479</int> > >> >> > > >> >> > <int name="1970-01-01T00:00:00Z">3479</int> > >> >> > > >> >> > <int name="1970-01-01T00:00:00Z">3479</int> > >> >> > > >> >> > <int name="2011-05-04T02:01:34.592Z">265</int> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Result from facet component, rounded by seconds.: > >> >> > > >> >> > <lst name="InsertTime"> > >> >> > <int name="2011-05-04T02:01:32Z">1</int> > >> >> > > >> >> > <int name="2011-05-04T02:01:33Z">1148</int> > >> >> > > >> >> > <int name="2011-05-04T02:01:34Z">2333</int> > >> >> > > >> >> > <str name="gap">+1SECOND</str> > >> >> > > >> >> > <date name="start">2011-05-03T06:14:14Z</date> > >> >> > > >> >> > <date name="end">2011-05-04T06:14:14Z</date></lst> > >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >
