Jayaraj, I have never used Kathy's approach of using "Flattened MARC Fields," but I want to learn for the future. Though when I have to make reports similar to yours I use SQL to run queries on the "metabib.full_rec" table when looking for bib MARC data, and I use the "authority.full_rec" table when looking for authority MARC data. Perhaps using "Flattened MARC Fields" is a better approach, but I wanted to share it with the list just in case it is helpful to others.
For the record, the metabib.full_rec table has multiple rows for a single bib record. One row for each tag and a each individual subfield, if the tag uses more than one subfield. So a 245 tag with subfield "a" and "b," will be stored as two separate table rows. So this SQL (if memory serves me correctly) will list all 100 tags, with their bib number (record), and the text (value) store in subfield "a" select record, tag, subfield, value from metabib.full_rec where tag = '100' and subfield = 'a' order by value Regretfully, because each subfield of a tag get its own row, your search for "245 a b c" will require using a SQL technique called "table aliases." Hope this helps a bit, Yamil > On Apr 26, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Kathy Lussier <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Jayaraj, > > I don't do much with reports, but this very question came up in IRC > yesterday. The suggestion there that came from Michele Morgan at NOBLE was to > use the "Flattened MARC Fields" source in reports. > > I hope this helps! > > Kathy >
