Skip to main content
ExLibris
  • Subscribe by RSS
    • Back
    Voyager
    Ex Libris Knowledge Center

    Incorrect duplication in Voyager ELINK_INDEX table

    1. Last updated
    2. Save as PDF
    • Product: Voyager
    • Relevant for Installation Type: Multi-Tenant Direct, Dedicated-Direct, Local, TotalCare

     

    Symptoms

    ELINK_INDEX table records duplicate rows for duplicate 856 fields, but both entries contain the URL found in the second instance of the 856.

    The SEQNUM field value in ELINK_INDEX can be seen to not be unique in the record.

    The SEQNUM field value in ELINK_INDEX can be an incredibly large number (e.g., 4484)

    Catalog record display and the data in the OPAC display are correct.

    Defect Status

    VYG-7031 is in Development.

    Replication Steps

    1. Find or create a bib with multiple 856 fields each with a URL in 856 $u
    2. Save the record to the DB.
    3. View the ELINK_INDEX table for that bib record.
    4. Open the record identified in Step 1 and add a new 856 above an existing 856.
    5. Save the record again to the DB.
    6. View the ELINK_INDEX table for that bib record and note any differences.

    Workaround

    An ELINK_INDEX regen will "fix" any duplicate entries in the table.  Contact Voyager Support to arrange for such a regen.

    Note that this is a temporary fix.  Further manual manipulation of 856 fields as per the Replication Steps will cause new corruption in the ELINK_INDEX table.

    Additional Information

    Description of defect provided by affected customer: 

    "(This appears to be) caused by a bug in the Cataloging Client. This bug is triggered any time an 856 field is manually added to a record and inserted above any existing 856 fields. This happens both when using the "Copy field" pop-up or if you insert a blank field and type or paste in information. It also happens any time 856 fields in a record are re-ordered (either with "Copy field" or with "Move field up/down by one"). Adding a new 856 field as the last 856 field in the record does not trigger the bug."

     

    • Article last edited: 19-Feb-2021