[Koha-zebra] Scan problem.

[Mike Taylor]

Henri-Damien LAURENT writes:
 > Hi,
 > I am exploring a bit further scanning feature.
 > It is really great and the fact that we can use @attr 8 with resultset
 > number would be of great value to display facets in my opinion.
 > But I am facing some problems :
 >  ZOOM::Resultsets and ZOOM::Scansets are linked to connexions.
 > If I want to use scan_pqf() with @attr 8= number, to limit facet to the
 > previous resultset, I have to get or to guess resultset Number.
 > But how can I since resultsets donot have any id property,
 > and users are likely to refine or do multiple searchs ?

You can retrieve the result-set ID using:
        $rs->option("resultSetId");

(Make sure you have an up-to-date YAZ for this to work.)

 > One solution I see would be to create and destroy connections right
 > before and right after each search. Would kohagang agree on that ?

I don't see that this is either necessary or sufficient.

 > That way, ResultSet number would always be 1.

Not necessarily.

 > But it seems to me that getting resultset number as a property of
 > ZOOM::ResultSets OR making ScanSets depend not only on connections but
 > also on ResultSets could be a solution and could be interesting.

Changing the model to make ScanSet dependent on ResultSet would have
dramatic consequences and would violate the ZOOM Abstract API.  But I
guess that you don't need this if you can fetch resultSetId.

 > Another question is :
 >      number [default: 10]
 >            Indicates how many terms should be returned in the ScanSet. 
 > The number actually returned may be less, if the start-point is near the
 > end of the index, but will not be greater.
 > Is there really no way to get More results ?

Well, sure: set "number" to a higher number.

 > What If I wanted only the 10 most relevant results but not the 10
 > first ? Would there be a solution ?

No, there is no relevance support in scan: it is a very literal-minded
browse of the index.

 > My last question would be : What if I want to get all the distinct
 > values stored for authors. Can I get them via a scan ?
 > something like scan_pqf("@attr 1=1 @attr 8=1 @attr 6=3") which would
 > return all authors, complete subfields, for resultset 1, assuming names
 > and surnames would be in the same subfield.

That looks about right.  Adam can comment on this from a more informed
perspective than I can.

 > (But would work for Callnumbers, simple subjects, branches and
 > Publihser names). Of course, we could get some by entering a
 > one-letter word a b c d.... But if we could avoid...

Sorry, I don't understand that question.

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <address@hidden>    http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  ... but Doctor, surely the odds against that happening are
         astronomical!