Yes, you have it correct.  At checkin, the system uses the best hold sort order 
associated with the copies owning lib.  Another side effect of using different 
best hold sort methods is that explaining it to staff gets convoluted.

You can double check me also by looking at the code at
http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=Evergreen.git;a=blob;f=Open-ILS/src/perlmods/lib/OpenILS/Application/Storage/Publisher/action.pm;hb=HEAD#l550
which shows the get_hold_sort_order being called using the copy owning lib as 
the only argument.

And just a tip for testing, if you use soft hold stalling and you are placing a 
bunch of holds to test with, watch out for the effects of the soft stalling on 
the results.  It may skip the hold you think should be picked because it isn't 
at the correct location.

Josh Stompro - LARL IT Director

From: Open-ils-general 
[mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of 
scott.tho...@sparkpa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 12:49 PM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group <open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org>
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Hybrid Consortium: FIFO and Opportunistic

Hi Josh,
   This is very helpful. Just so I understand...

Library System A uses FIFO and Library Systems B and C do not. There is 
resource sharing between all three library systems with 3 Month Age Protection. 
The item reaches the three month mark. At that time, the holds queue looks like 
this based on Request Time:


1.       Patron Library B

2.       Patron Library C

3.       Patron Library B

Assuming no other copies are making the rounds and the only copy available 
belongs to Library A, the holds will be filled exactly in this order even 
though libraries B and C are not FIFO?

Thank you,
Scott



From: Open-ils-general 
[mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Josh 
Stompro
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:06 AM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group 
<open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org>>
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Hybrid Consortium: FIFO and Opportunistic

Hello Scott, we are much smaller than your organization, one system has 23 org 
units and the other has 10 org units.  But we do have one system using request 
time as one of their primary sorts.  They are not using pure FIFO, but request 
time is the determining sort for holds in the same system. They are using a 
modified hprox[1] sort that always prioritizes holds that are in the same 
system as the items owning location.  So they will always fill all of their own 
holds first (in FIFO order) before the items will go to another system.  And if 
another hold is placed for one of their patrons, their items will always come 
home to fill those next.  Without using the modified hprox or without the age 
hold protection I don't think they would be very happy with FIFO.  What they 
really wanted was FIFO for their own holds, not to fill the other system's 
holds first if they were newer.

The best hold sort order is tied to the item's owning location.  So the FIFO 
preference will follow their items when they get sent out to another system.  
So it could increase delivery load.  In your case, If they just enabled FIFO 
with nothing else, then after the 3 month age hold protection is up, their 
items would start filling the oldest holds across the consortium.  That is 
probably good for the other systems, but not ideal for their own patrons.

This seems to work fine so far, but the same system that uses FIFO also is 
currently Age Hold Protecting their new items for 5 months.  So not many of 
their new items ever get sent to the larger system anymore.  So it is hard to 
know how it is really working out since the volume is so low.  After switching 
to FIFO they haven't said anything about their delivery load being too high.  
And the larger system usually fills most of our high demand title holds before 
5 months are up, so we don't have a large number of their FIFO items in 
delivery.

When I look at how some of our high demand titles are operating, I do see 
situations where one or more locations get starved for items for months at a 
time because all the items are at other locations with many holds.  It might 
actually help things out to have some fifo items in the mix, since those would 
help fill some of those holds that are older.

We are also exploring turning off age hold protection as soon as an item has 
sat on the shelf for at least x number of days.  One of the main reasons the 
smaller system uses the age hold protection is because they want their users to 
have a chance to browse and discover new items on the shelf before they go off 
to fill the larger system's holds for months at a time.  As long as the item 
has been available on the shelf for a certain amount of time, they may be ok 
with the age hold protection getting turned off much sooner.

1 - https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1738844 - If anyone else would 
find this useful it would be good to get some feedback on it.


Josh Stompro - LARL IT Director

From: Open-ils-general 
[mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of 
scott.tho...@sparkpa.org<mailto:scott.tho...@sparkpa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 6:53 AM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group 
<open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org>>
Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Hybrid Consortium: FIFO and Opportunistic

Hi,
   Our consortium is currently at 121 members and growing. While individual 
library systems practice resource sharing and we are in the midst of a resource 
sharing trial between three more distant libraries, we do not have 
consortium-wide resource sharing at this time. Holds consortium-wide are set to 
not use FIFO. This has not been a problem, but now one local system has 
requested to be switched to FIFO. I am not unsympathetic: they are a 
consolidated library system with two buildings both within a mile of each 
other. For them there is no intrinsic advantage to opportunistic holds, and the 
current method is unpopular with patrons. However, they  resource share with 
two other nearby library systems that are not FIFO. If we were to switch this 
library to FIFO, what implications would it have for the other two non-FIFO 
libraries with whom they resource share? I am not sure if it matters, but they 
use 3 month age protection.

Thank you,
Scott

Scott Thomas
Executive Director
PaILS / SPARK
(717) 873-9461
scott.tho...@sparkpa.org<mailto:scott.tho...@sparkpa.org>
Stay informed! Join the SPARK-User Email List:
https://mail.palibrary.org/mailman/listinfo/spark-users
[Description: Description: Training | SPARK - Pennsylvania's Statewide Library 
System]<http://www.palibrary.org/pails/>

Reply via email to