On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Jared Camins-Esakov <[email protected]> wrote: > Tomas, >> >> > Our problem was : >> > melm 001 local-number,local-number:n >> > ...... >> > melm 035$a local-number,local-number:n >> > We had two fields indexed in "local-number" and we had "ghost entries". >> > We have corrected in : >> > melm 001 local-number,local-number:n >> > ...... >> > melm 035$a identifier-other,identifier-other:n >> > Reindex and it was the end of the fabulous story of ghost entries. >> >> Perhaps its just out of my knowledge's scope, by I don't see the >> problem of having two different fields indexed under the same name, I >> mean, I'd think both would match the same record and thus not be shown >> twice. I'd rather think of a weird coincidence. I'm sorry if my >> confusion just makes the situation more obscure. > > The issue here is that the local-number index has "magic" properties. I > don't really understand how Zebra works, but I do know that every entry in > the local-number index is considered a "separate" record. So if record has > two fields that appear in the local-number index, the Zebra index will store > two copies of the record (this is where the search results in Koha come > from, not from the database). At some point I will submit a patch changing > the suggestion for the 035 index, since uncommenting the "melm 035" line as > it stands now in the MARC21 record.abs is pretty much guaranteed to corrupt > your Zebra indexes.
I guess the magic property might have to do with this in zebra-*.cfg: recordId: (bib1,Local-number) i suppose it is the value used as interal ID for the record. I'd think it is a bug in zebra or th eway we use it. Regards To+ _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org [email protected] http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
