Thanks, Bill, that's exactly what I needed to know! This is how I
assumed it worked, but many of the things I assume turn out to not be
true, so I thought I'd check.
We'd definitely go with the MARC for anything where we trust the
accuracy and consistency of our data, and use the copy location groups
for situations where the MARC is either untrustworthy or not as specific
as we need to get the results we want.
On 7/11/2013 3:51 PM, Bill Erickson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Elizabeth B. Thomsen <[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <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]
