Figured out the solution.
The datefield in those documents were stored as binary, so what I should do
is
Fieldable df = doc.getFieldable(fname);
byte[] ary = df.getBinaryValue();
ByteBuffer bb = ByteBuffer.wrap(ary);
long num = bb.getLong();
ate dt = DateTools.stringToDate(DateTools.timeToString(num,
DateTools.Resolution.SECOND));
Then you get dt as a string in the right format.
Ming-
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Mingfeng Yang <mfy...@wisewindow.com>wrote:
> I did System.println(d.get('date')), and the output is
> "stored,binary,omitNorms,indexOptions=DOCS_ONLY<date:[B@4cbfea1d>"
>
> Emmm.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Chris Hostetter <hossman_luc...@fucit.org
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> : I used solr to query the index, and verified that each document does
>> have a
>> : non-blank date field. I suspect that it's because the lucene-3.6 api I
>> am
>> : using can not read datefield correctly from documents written in lucene
>> 1.4
>> : format.
>>
>> how did you verify that they all have a non-blank value?
>>
>> my wild short in the dark guess here...
>>
>> 1) you are "verifying" that every doc has a value in the date field by
>> using something like q=date:[* TO *] and looking at the numfound and it
>> matches q=*:*
>> 2) at some point your date field was indexed but not stored, and a large
>> number of documnts were added during this time.
>> 3) so now all of your documents have an *indexed* value for the date
>> field, but many of them have no *stored* value for the date field.
>>
>>
>> -Hoss
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
