[Evergreen-catalogers] MODS indexing and 700 |t

[Galen Charlton]

Hi,

On 5/4/2012 9:03 AM, Hardy, Elaine wrote:
> 2) In general, I agree that the 7xx fields should be weighted differently
> than an 1xx field. An good example of a problem with not doing so is the
> author search for John Sandford -- the author of adult thrillers and an
> illustrator of children's books (different people). In the PINES catalog
> (currently out of the box ranking), the children's books display first and
> then the others even though the illustrator is in a 700 field and the
> other Sandford is in the 100.. It would be a little more relevant to have
> the 100 Sandford, John records first in the relevance ranking. But, what
> would the overall result be in putting them in separate name indexes?
> Would it slow down search returns?

No, I wouldn't expect that to make a material difference in search 
performance.  That's not to say, of course, that one should take it to 
an extreme and create hundreds of new indexes, but adding new default 
search indexes for specific purposes like tweaking the relevance of 
primary and secondary contributors would be fine.

Regards,

Galen
-- 
Galen Charlton
Director of Support and Implementation
Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
email:  gmc at esilibrary.com
direct: +1 770-709-5581
cell:   +1 404-984-4366
skype:  gmcharlt
web:    http://www.esilibrary.com
Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org & 
http://evergreen-ils.org