[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Searching the catalog

[Garry Dunn]

Mike Rylander wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Garry Dunn <garry at trellisconsulting.ca> wrote:
>> Jason & Dan,
>>
>> Thanks for the replies.  We haven't solved this one yet, but you certainly
>> gave me a few more ideas to look into.
>>
>> Setting 'staged searching' to false didn't change anything and I remember
>> checking out the org units (based on the query given in the wiki), so I
>> think we're OK there.
>>
>> I went back to a blank database and imported the Gutenberg records and
>> I'm still getting zero search results (in the staff client and the
>> catalog (with 'source=3')).
>>
>> With the Gutenberg records, looking at the metabib schema, I have records
>> in:
>>
>> author_field_entry
>> full_rec
>> rec_descriptor
>> series_field_entry
>> subject_field_entry
>> title_field_entry
>>
>> but none in:
>>
>> keyword_field_entry
> 
> This is concerning, though this can easily happen if
> [parallel_]pg_loader.pl didn't get one or both of '-or mkfe' or '-a
> mkfe' in the big, ugly command line argument list.

Mike nailed this one--I was missing the '-or mkfe' on the ugly command 
line.  Great catch.  Gutenberg is now searching.

And now that I understand a bit more about how the searching works, I 
see we're missing information in our metabib tables.  I'll get that and 
see how we fair.  I think we'll be good to go!

Thanks for all the help.

>> metarecord
>> metarecord_source_map
>>
> 
> These (or, rather, the lack thereof) are surely due to not running
> quick_metarecord_map.sql or the similar incantation described at:
> 
> http://open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=scratchpad:random_magic_spells#how_to_generate_metarecords_for_a_newly_loaded_bib_batch
> 
> Otherwise ... something bigger is amiss.
> 
> --miker
> 
>> I'm not sure what that means!
>>
>> I'll have to load our records in again to see what happens with those
>> tables.
>>
>> I'm hoping to be trying this on another test system (loaded by another team
>> member).  I'll let you know how that goes.
>>
>> Is there anything else I should be checking?
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> Dan Scott wrote:
>>> 2009/4/13 Jason Etheridge <jason at esilibrary.com>:
>>>>> So what's wrong, you ask?  If I try a basic catalog search (in the OPAC
>>>>> or
>>>>> the staff client) I get zero results, regardless of what I search for.
>>>> Garry, did you figure this out?  Have you tried direct lookups by TCN
>>>> or item barcode?
>>>>
>>>>> Any ideas on where to start to correct this problem?
>>>> I'd start looking at the various metabib.* tables, and see if they're
>>>> getting populated.
>>> This is certainly a good idea. If they are indeed populated, I have
>>> another idea...
>>>
>>> One change between 1.2 and 1.4 is the staged search, which is much
>>> faster than the regular old 1.2 search. However, staged search is also
>>> much pickier about your org_unit hierarchy; if you have one org_unit
>>> at the wrong depth, or skip a depth in the hierarchy, your search is
>>> going to return nothing.
>>>
>>> You can tell if you are using staged search by checking for
>>> <use_staged_search>true</use_staged_search> in opensrf.xml - if
>>> changing it to "false" makes a difference, this is a pretty strong
>>> clue that you need to double-check actor.org_unit and
>>> actor.org_unit_type.
>>>