LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


ZNG@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  August 2007

ZNG August 2007

Subject:

Re: numberOfRecords

From:

Roger Wallin <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Wed, 8 Aug 2007 05:19:07 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (78 lines)

That sounds good. Is it allowed to combine a diagnostic with a normal 
query-answer (records)?

Regards RogerW. 


On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:16:22 +0100, Dr R. Sanderson wrote:
>The suggestion at the March 2006 meeting was that there should be a
>new diagnostic:
>
>The numberOfRecords is approximate
> 	(eg Google's 18 million results for 'the')
>
>And an extension which allows the client to tell the server that it
>doesn't care about the numberOfRecords.
>
>Rob
>
>On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Roger Wallin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:30:20 +0200, Matthew J. Dovey >> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm writing a very "simple" SRU-server. I'm worried about the response
>>>> parameter "numberOfRecords". For me it would seem natural to request
>>>> for
>>>> the "numberOfRecords" only when you need it, fex. by
>>>> using "maximumRecords=0".
>>>
>>> A request for maximumRecords=0 is useful for when the client *only*
>>> wants a count, but the assumption is that numberOfRecords is always
>>> returned regardless of however many records are requested/returned.
>>> There is no need for the client to actually use this data (it could 
just
>>> ignore it), and intelligent servers may cache the count (and the result
>>> set) say keyed on the query term, rather than repeat the count (and
>>> query) should the client ask for a different set of records for the 
same
>>> query.
>>>
>>> There may be situations where a server cannot return an accurate count
>>> for whatever reason (e.g. too expensive, or in the case of relevance
>>> based text retrieval engines ala Google). In this case, it is suggested
>>> that you return an arbitrarily large value in the numberOfRecords.
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>> 
========================================================================
>>
>> Thanks for your answers,
>>
>> I'm sorry not having responded earlier, but I have been out of office 
for
>> a couple of weeks.
>> I suppose that I have to cope with the fact that the server shall always
>> return the numberOfRecords of the whole record-set. Nevertheless I think
>> that this is a lack of server-logic. Modern databases do usually have an
>> effective way to do custom paging (limited pages) and then the need for
>> the numberOfRecords of the whole record-set will always be a burden, and
>> it will also be a burden for the server to conclude that an arbitrarily
>> large value should be returned. I think that the best solution to this
>> would be the possibility for the client to use a request-
>> parameter "numberOfRecords", and if used/filled by the client it would
>> tell the server that it doesn't have to return the "numberOfRecords".
>> Yes, you do  usually want to know the (total) "numberOfRecords" 
requesting
>> for the first limited page (although not necessarily), so I have to look
>> at how to cache the count (and the query). For me it would have been 
much
>> easier to forget about state/caching, but I don't think that it's a good
>> solution to count the total "numberOfRecords" for every limited page. Is
>> this server-logic a consequence of servers building/saving the whole
>> result-set (of course in an internal effective way) although just a
>> limited page should be returned? Comments appreciated.
>>
>> Regards RogerW :).
>>
>=========================================================================

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager