https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=33092
David Cook <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #3 from David Cook <[email protected]> --- If I understand the above commenters, you would want to search a list like you search the catalogue? However, the catalogue search is done by the search engine, while lists are managed only in the database. Technically, with few changes, you could create a search query that contains every record in a list by including every biblionumber for every record in the list in a query, but large lists would create very large query lengths, which might even be too long for the search engine to manage. A more robust change would be to add lists to the search engine. This would mean storing the list ID in the actual bibliographic record itself. Since a bib record can belong to many lists, this would need to be a repeatable subfield. This subfield would then be added to search engine indexes. I suppose something like the 999$l (lowercase l) could be used, but I don’t know if other Koha community developers would be agreeable to that solution. Alternatively, an Elasticsearch only solution could probably be developed that doesn’t require changing the MARC, but again I don’t know if anyone would be agreeable to that solution. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
