Thanks, Bill! We probably should have been able to guess that syntax.
We use copy location groups extensively here for scopes, and have to
edit them frequently when libraries rearrange their collections and add
new copy locations, so not having to remember to add these in two places
would definitely be helpful.
One more question on the speed of search issue -- is there a difference
here between using a copy location in a search filter group and using
one as a scope in the location selector? We currently have some
location group scopes that include very long lists of copy locations,
and don't have speed problems with them.
For example, we have a copy location group that's called All Children's
Locations in the location selector and it works fine. Would there be
any reason that it would be slower if used in as in a search filter
group for audience as an alternative to working with the MARC audience
fixed field?
We're trying to test these, but we're working on our training system
which is different hardware and obviously different load. We're
enthusiastic about the power of search filter groups but a little wary
about possible performance issues.
On 7/11/2013 9:04 AM, Bill Erickson wrote:
Hi Elizabeth,
You can use Copy Location Groups within Search Filter Groups. The
syntax is "location_groups(1,2,3,...)". They would certainly be easier
to maintain, particularly if your location groups are already
configured, but they would have no effect either way on the speed of the
search as compared to bare copy locations.
-b
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Elizabeth B. Thomsen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
We're working on improving our TPAC with new formats and advanced
filters using search filter groups, and would be interested to see
what others have done with these. Is anyone willing to share?
We especially like the ability to mix and match MARC data and copy
locations, but we're concerned about possible performance issues if
we create filter items using long lists of copy locations. Has
anyone had any experience with this? Is there any way to use copy
location groups rather than individual copy locations? This would
be easier for us to maintain, but would there also be performance
advantages if this were possible?
--
Elizabeth Thomsen, Member Services Manager
NOBLE: North of Boston Library Exchange
26 Cherry Hill Drive
Danvers MA 01923
E-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
--
Bill Erickson
| Senior Software Developer
| phone: 877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
| email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
| web: http://esilibrary.com
| Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
--
Elizabeth Thomsen, Member Services Manager
NOBLE: North of Boston Library Exchange
26 Cherry Hill Drive
Danvers MA 01923
E-mail: [email protected]
