Ferret 0.10.11 & AAF: sorting Time fields doesn't work

Ferret 0.10.11 & AAF: the time seems to be stored in a format that can’t
be sorted, the order doesn’t make any sense. Workaround: use to_i on the
Time object before putting it into the index.

On 10/14/06, Andreas S. [email protected] wrote:

Ferret 0.10.11 & AAF: the time seems to be stored in a format that can’t
be sorted, the order doesn’t make any sense. Workaround: use to_i on the
Time object before putting it into the index.

This is fine for sorting but it won’t work when you want to do range
queries. If you want to run range queries against the field you will
need to pad the integer to a fixed width.

I usually add dates in YYYYMMDD format so that they are also human
readable. Another thing to take into account is the precision you
want. The higher the precision you store the longer indexing and
searching will take. For small indexes however the difference will be
negligible.

Cheers,
Dave

Cheers,
Dave

David B. wrote:

On 10/14/06, Andreas S. [email protected] wrote:

Ferret 0.10.11 & AAF: the time seems to be stored in a format that can’t
be sorted, the order doesn’t make any sense. Workaround: use to_i on the
Time object before putting it into the index.

This is fine for sorting but it won’t work when you want to do range
queries. If you want to run range queries against the field you will
need to pad the integer to a fixed width.

Thanks, I didn’t think of that. The width of a unix timestamp isn’t
going to change for the next few years, though.

I usually add dates in YYYYMMDD format so that they are also human
readable.

I need at least seconds in this case.

Another thing to take into account is the precision you
want. The higher the precision you store the longer indexing and
searching will take. For small indexes however the difference will be
negligible.

Will this also affect :sort performance? I have another index with 450k
documents that I also would like to sort by time, that’s probably no
longer a small index. Is the sorting capable of :sorting and :limiting a
large numer of results (e.g. 100k), or is this something that should
only be done with small result sets?

Andreas

On 10/14/06, Andreas S. [email protected] wrote:

Thanks, I didn’t think of that. The width of a unix timestamp isn’t

negligible.

Will this also affect :sort performance? I have another index with 450k
documents that I also would like to sort by time, that’s probably no
longer a small index. Is the sorting capable of :sorting and :limiting a
large numer of results (e.g. 100k), or is this something that should
only be done with small result sets?

It should sort the first time in under one second. After that the sort
will be cached so it will be even quicker. To use sort caching though,
be sure to use a sort object and not a sort_field or plain old string.
Also, for best performance, sort by byte instead of integer (which
will only work if you have a fixed width integer field). ie

:sort => Sort.new(SortField.new(:field_name, :type => :byte))

Cheers,
Dave

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs