At 10:51 AM 5/1/2014 +1200, Robin Sheat wrote:
Paul A schreef op wo 30-04-2014 om 10:03 [-0400]:
> Can anyone please suggest where I could start looking in the code for
> what
> might cause orphaned biblioitems?
You're going to have to define what an orphaned biblioitem record is,
because that SQL query doesn't seem to do anything that I'd relate to
that term. Do you mean duplicate biblios?
Sort of... sorry to be vague, so here's an example, the tail of the query
(simplified to remove the html:
mysql> SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(biblionumber SEPARATOR ', ') AS BibNums,
-> EXTRACTVALUE(marcxml,'//controlfield[@tag="001"]') AS Id FROM
biblioitems
-> GROUP BY Id HAVING count(Id) > 1;
+---------------------+--------------+
| BibNums | Id |
+---------------------+--------------+
[snip]
| 22969, 19151 | 8914106 |
+---------------------+--------------+
31 rows in set (0.89 sec)
gives me 2 biblio numbers (22969, 19151), both for John Toland's book "The
flying tigers" which has the Library of Congress 001. A search in the staff
page and the OPAC confirm that we only have one -- both show "The Flying
Tigers / (Record no. 22969)"
If I search for the other number as
cgi-bin/koha/catalogue/search.pl?q=biblionumber=19151 in the staff page I
get "No results found No results match your search for 'biblionumber=19151'
in NMA Catalog."
BUT... if I specifically go to
/cgi-bin/koha/cataloguing/addbiblio.pl?biblionumber=19151, I get a biblio
that our cataloguers either overwrote or deleted or whatever... And,
because it's not "findable" in the staff page, it cannot be deleted without
direct intervention in the MySQL db.
I called it an "orphaned biblioitem" because, without looking for that LoC
001 in biblioitems, I would have had no clue that an unused record was
"floating around."
All it's doing is finding the first biblionumber of a set where members
have the same 001. This could just be cataloguing the same thing twice,
or records with badly generated 001 entries, or something along those
lines.
I'm convinced that your thought "cataloguing the same thing twice" is
correct -- quite often our cataloguers use Z39.50 to update/overwrite a
biblio, but they swear blind that they always delete any previous record
that still appears after re-indexing.
That's why I'm intrigued about these "orphans"
Thanks for your interest and best regards -- Paul
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
website : http://www.koha-community.org/
git : http://git.koha-community.org/
bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
