https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=39931 shahrum <shahrum.alias@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|OPAC Sorting by Publication |OPAC Sorting by Publication |Year (264$c) Does Not Work |Year (260$c) Does Not Work |Correctly |Correctly -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=39931 --- Comment #2 from shahrum <shahrum.alias@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #1)

I'd argue that it should use the normalized date in 008 and it might do that already. Have you verified you have 008 (Date 1) in your data set correctly? 264 is repeatable, selecting the right one for sorting is not trivial.

Thank you for your response, Katrin! You're absolutely right that the 008 field (Date 1) is a standard place for publication year in MARC records. However, in our case, we rarely use the 008 field because most of our records are either locally created or imported without full fixed fields. We primarily rely on variable fields like `260$c` for the publication year. In our workflow, we use `260$c` as the main source for publication year. this is how many libraries handle manually entered records where 008 may not always be filled out completely. We noticed that while the data in `260$c` is properly stored and can be extracted/sorted via direct SQL query, the OPAC does not sort these results correctly by publication year. This suggests there may be an issue with how the OPAC indexing layer (Zebra/Elasticsearch) handles sorting based on variable MARC fields like `260$c`. Is there a way to ensure that Koha's OPAC search layer reliably uses `260$c` for sorting by publication year? Any guidance or insights from your experience would be greatly appreciated! thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=39931 shahrum <shahrum.alias@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WORKSFORME |--- --- Comment #4 from shahrum <shahrum.alias@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #3)

The date range search on advanced search also uses 008. You might want to add the missing ones to your data. Sorting by 008 is the expected behavior.

Thank you for the clarification, Katrin! I understand that using the 008 field for sorting and filtering is the expected behavior in Koha, especially since it’s also used by other features like the date range search in advanced search. We have tried manually updating some of our records to ensure the 008 field contains valid publication years. While a few of them now sort correctly, but most still do not, and the issue persists across many records.

From my observation: The first 20 pages of results usually sort correctly by publication year, but starting from around page 20 onward (depending on the total number of results), sorting breaks down and becomes inconsistent.

This makes me think that the issue might not only be about which field is used for sorting, but also how the index handles large result sets or how the data is stored/normalized in the index. Could it be that: - Not all 008 values are being properly extracted or normalized during indexing? - Or there's an issue with pagination and how the index returns sorted results beyond a certain threshold? Any insight into what could cause this kind of behavior would be greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your time and support. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=39931 --- Comment #6 from shahrum <shahrum.alias@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #5)

OK, that might be a different issue. Are you using Zebra or Elasticsearch?

Zebra -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=39931 --- Comment #8 from shahrum <shahrum.alias@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #7)

Zebra has a limit on how many records are sorted. It's for performance reasons I guess. It's configured in one of the Zebra config files I believe here: https://git.koha-community.org/Koha-community/Koha/src/commit/ d7af2cacff2692c803579117953f3cd13c94c878/etc/zebradb/zebra-biblios-dom.cfg

sortmax:1000

Maybe check what you have configured and if it works for smaller result sets.

Thank you for the detailed information, Katrin. I will take some time to review our Zebra configuration, particularly the sortmax setting in the zebra-biblios-dom.cfg file. I'll test whether adjusting this parameter affects the sorting behavior for publication years in the OPAC. I'll keep this thread open and will update you with my findings once I've completed the necessary checks. Best regards, Shahrum -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.