Summary: | Sort order breaks at offset=1000 (both OPAC and Intranet) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Koha | Reporter: | Barton Chittenden <barton> |
Component: | Searching | Assignee: | Galen Charlton <gmcharlt> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Testopia <testopia> |
Severity: | enhancement | ||
Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | dcook, f.demians, marjorie.barry-vila, nick, paul.thornton, pm |
Version: | Main | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
GIT URL: | Change sponsored?: | --- | |
Patch complexity: | --- | Documentation contact: | |
Documentation submission: | Text to go in the release notes: | ||
Version(s) released in: | Circulation function: | ||
Bug Depends on: | 7041 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Barton Chittenden
2015-12-08 16:48:02 UTC
(In reply to Frédéric Demians from comment #1) > Take a look at bug 7041 You might also take a look at "sortmax" at http://www.indexdata.com/zebra/doc/zebra-cfg.html Is this valid then, or does sortmax/bug 7041 solve this? (In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #3) > Is this valid then, or does sortmax/bug 7041 solve this? sortmax would allow you to sort more records, but it'll always be a limitation, I think. I wonder if there's a way to specify sort all... Reading through bug 7041 it looks like there is a configuration setting to change the max records to sort - closing as a duplicate. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 7041 *** On review can I ask if there is a difference between 7041 & 15331 in that: What is being requested here is a "sort all" parameter - that is the system will sort all results in the set whether it is 10 or 100,000. Where as 7041 is a specified number and after that number the results will be no longer sorted. Potentially this would cause a performance hit on some searches, but that would be expected. I fear the performance hit would be too big to justify a change to a high number by default. What we could do is document this option/behaviour better, so libraries can choose to take the hit. (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #7) > I fear the performance hit would be too big to justify a change to a high > number by default. What we could do is document this option/behaviour > better, so libraries can choose to take the hit. I agree with Katrin. Koha is used by libraries big and small, so I think it's a better idea to be more conservative by default. (That said, it would be interesting if someone did some benchmarks on this one. Perhaps 1000 is an arbitrary number. We don't have numbers on the actual performance degradation at present I think.) I am also curious about the scenarios where people are getting search results higher than 1000. Back at university, as a student, I think librarians and professors would've told us that our searches were too broad if we were returning that many results. (That said, maybe you are doing a search for all science fiction and want to search through the results alphabetically, as you can't quite remember exactly what you're looking for. That seems reasonable too.) |