[Koha-devel] Orphaned biblioitems

[Paul A]

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