https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=39558
--- Comment #5 from Marcel de Rooy <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Nick Clemens (kidclamp) from comment #4) > (In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #3) > > We are discussing this on bug 39397 too. I think that we should normally > > leave the timestamp update to sql. If the specific table changed, change the > > timestamp. If not, dont touch it. > > > > Moving this to In discussion too. > > The current situation is weird though, because it's not just 'did them marc > change' - but 'did a specific field we have mapped changed' > > Right now we have to check three tables to decide if a "record" has had > changes. > > The need for this comes from syncing with outside systems - 'biblios' is the > endpoint for this - joining to the 'biblio_metadata' table makes any > queries more expensive - with the timestamps in sync we can do a simple > query to fetch the recently updated records. > > Is there a use case to know that the record was updated, but not the title > or author fields? Not sure about the last sentence, you can update a record and not touch the title or author, right? In most cases it seems to me that you just need to check biblio_metadata or items. There is an index on the primary key for biblio_metadata. Why look at biblio or biblioitems? -- You are receiving this mail because: 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/
