Hi Mike, Yes, NULLS FIRST/LAST is used for pubdate.
I did not connect this issue to the missing normalizer issue. Thanks for connecting the dots for me. Liam On Jan 31, 2014, at 8:26 AM, Mike Rylander <[email protected]> wrote: > Liam, > > Thanks for looking at this, but I think we should just use the > approximate_low_date() normalizer and be done. I believe a recently > offered branch of yours should take care of making sure it is > installed, and we can also add it to the normalizer list for pubdate > without risk. > > As for creating two attributes, that is a waste of space, will slow > down search, and will lead to confusing user-level behavior. By > having differing values for replacement of u (or x, as is sometimes > used) used for ASC or DESC, we'll just make the display order unstable > and confusing when switching between the two. > > As for nulls, we can use NULLS FIRST/LAST to push unknown values to > the end. We do that already for at least some of the ORDER BY columns > ... and I thought pubdate was one of the. > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Liam Whalen > <[email protected]> wrote: >> We have noticed a problem with sorting by date where records with empty >> date1 values or date1 values with 'u' in them are sorted to the top of the >> search results in both Newest to Oldest and Oldest to Newest sorts. >> >> I have worked around this with the following fix: >> >> http://git.sitka.bclibraries.ca/gitweb/?p=sitka/evergreen.git;a=commit;h=476cf5aa7b14b9934ae5521046eb79c9d3d4573b >> >> But, this forces calculations to happen when sorting, which fails to >> capitalize on the possibilities of an index. >> >> I suggest that we change the pubdate index to pubdate_asc and pubdate_desc. >> >> In the case of records with no date1 value, pubdate_asc would be given a >> value of 9999 and pubdate_desc would be given a value of 0. >> >> This will force these records to the bottom of date sorted results. >> >> In the case of records with 'u' characters in date1, we replace all >> occurrences of u with 9 in pubdate_asc and all occurrences of u with 0 in >> pubade_desc. This will push these records to the bottom of their relevant >> date groups. >> >> I can make these changes. Is it a good idea to separate pubdate into two >> categories like this? >> >> Liam > > > > -- > Mike Rylander > | Director of Research and Development > | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source > | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) > | email: [email protected] > | web: http://www.esilibrary.com
