<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi<br>
<br>
As performance issue on search or circulation would be more harmful
that performance issue on acquisition module, what about <br>
- keeping the deleted* tables<br>
- adding a new column "detetedbiblionumber" in aqorders<br>
- editing some subs in C4 for taking into using deleted records as well
as existing one<br>
- (maybe doing the same work for deleteditems)<br>
<br>
If you agree with the idea, I can try to make the changes.<br>
<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
<br>
Galen Charlton a écrit :
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAPLnt65xC9XhRQuJ0NE9wqnONruCrQGX_87N0WOznzCZY9hxuw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi,
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Mathieu
Saby <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mathieu.saby@univ-rennes2.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.saby@univ-rennes2.fr</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Yep, that was one of my ideas too. So, less work will be necessary on
C4 subs.<br>
But as said K. Fisher, if there are "deleted..." tables, it is probably
for one reason??<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here are some pros and cons of keeping them in the same table,
but with a deleted flag.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>PROs</div>
<div>--------------</div>
<div>[1] Foreign key relationships can be expressed and enforced
without contortions.</div>
<div>[2] Certain types of UNION queries would not required.</div>
<div><br>
CONs</div>
<div>----------</div>
<div>[1] Most SQL queries would need the equivalent of a 'AND NOT
deleted' clause tacked on to them. Easier to do cleanly with
DBIx::Class, perhaps, but that would still leave SQL reports (and
legacy code).</div>
<div>[2] Code would have to ensure that you don't end up with active
items attached to logically deleted bibs.</div>
<div>[3] There may be a point where a library or consortium that has
been running Koha for a long time ends up with a significant portion of
their biblio table containing logically deleted records, to the
positive detriment of query performance. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Not really a clear win either way.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>With some reluctance, as it seems a bit messy, I guess I lean
towards creating an aqorders.<span
style="font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">deletedbiblionumber
column.</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Galen</div>
-- </div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Galen Charlton</div>
<div>Manager of Implementation</div>
<div>Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts</div>
<div>email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gmc@esilibrary.com" target="_blank">gmc@esilibrary.com</a></div>
<div>direct: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B1%20770-709-5581"
value="+17707095581" target="_blank">+1 770-709-5581</a></div>
<div>cell: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B1%20404-984-4366"
value="+14049844366" target="_blank">+1 404-984-4366</a></div>
<div>skype: gmcharlt</div>
<div>web: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.esilibrary.com/" target="_blank">http://www.esilibrary.com/</a></div>
<div>Supporting Koha and Evergreen: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://koha-community.org" target="_blank">http://koha-community.org</a>
& <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://evergreen-ils.org"
target="_blank">http://evergreen-ils.org</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mathieu Saby
Service d'Informatique Documentaire
Service Commun de la Documentation
Université Rennes 2
Téléphone : 02 99 14 12 65
Courriel : <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mathieu.saby@univ-rennes2.fr">mathieu.saby@univ-rennes2.fr</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>