Are there any thorny issues related to using this approach with SRW (as
opposed to SRU, as discussed in the messages you refer to)?

--Sebastian

At 19:56 17-09-2003 +0100, Matthew J. Dovey wrote:
>We discussed this back in June and cam to a conclusion that http 1.1
>pipelining seemed the cleanest solution (see
>http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0306&L=zng&F=&S=&P=3768 and
>http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0306&L=zng&F=&S=&P=3996)?
>
>
>Matthew
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > On Behalf Of Sebastian Hammer
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 6:47 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Agenda Item: Metasearching - Multi-database search
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Ray asked Brad Buckley of Gale to provide his input on
> > Metasearch-specific
> > requirements. His response to Ray echoes discussion from the
> > Metasearch
> > workshop in Denver earlier this year and I think it's a good
> > point to raise.
> >
> > Content-providers like Gale, who hosts large numbers of databases, are
> > faced with a peculiar challenge from metasearch engines.
> > Specifically it
> > involves metasearchers automatically launching parallel
> > searches against
> > several Gale-owned databases at once. This is perceived as a
> > useful service
> > by the developers and operators of metasearch engines, but it creates
> > issues related to performance for the operator of the
> > databases. Picture a
> > situation where a single user fires off a search in a
> > metasearch portal
> > which is automatically turned into 10, 20, or 100 parallel search
> > operations against the server.. imagine this kind of activity from a
> > popular metasearch portal, and things might start to get
> > pretty hot in the
> > server pit at Gale (for example).
> >
> > In a nutshell, the proposal is for a mechanism that allows a
> > metasearch
> > engine to 'bundle' these searches into a single request, and
> > similarly to
> > allow the server to bundle the responses into a single package.
> >
> > We're talking about something that goes beyond mere multi-database
> > searching in the original Z39.50 sense of the word.. we need
> > individual
> > hit-counts (and result sets) back from the server, and we
> > will probably in
> > some cases wish to send different query expressions to different
> > databases... it comes much more close to the idea of a
> > compound PDU model
> > which was discussed for Z39.50 a while back. A way to
> > implement this would
> > be to introduce a "wrapper" element to allow multiple SRW
> > requests to go in
> > the same SOAP package. Another benefit for the content
> > provider would be
> > the ability to manage resources by refusing individual
> > component requests
> > (eg. during peak loads) without having to fail all requests.
> > Presumably
> > this would allow greater "fairness" in managing scant resources.
> >
> > I am personally ambivalent about this, and even as a metasearch engine
> > developer, I feel that there are some thorny issues here. But
> > this is an
> > attempt to honestly represent a requirement that was put on
> > the table by
> > representatives of the content providers in Denver.
> >
> > --Sebastian
> > --
> > Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/>
> > Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101
> >
> >

--
Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/>
Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101