On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Elizabeth B. Thomsen <[email protected]>wrote: <snip>
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. > There is no difference. They both boil down to a search query string with a location_groups(...) filter. > > 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? > Well, filtering on a MARC field is probably faster than filtering on copy data, but if the "All Children's Locations" works fine in the location selector, it will also work fine in a Search Filter Group entry. -b -- Bill Erickson | Senior Software Developer | phone: 877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) | email: [email protected] | web: http://esilibrary.com | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
