Largest WORKING Quicken QDF (data) file
Joseph J. Greenberg
with? I have a 16MB one and tech support was trying to get me to archive
most of it, "since Quicken wasn't intended for data files more than like 4
or 5 megs". I like being able to run reports over a long period of time, so
I'm resisting? Any thoughts?
Jay Levitt
ne...@greenberg.diespammerdie.net says...
Mine, which has data going back to 1992, is 13,382K. I get occasional
slowdowns entering Buys in investment transactions, but a Validate always
fixes that.
--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?
Clark Wilhelm Griswold, Jr.
8 years worth of data, 9.2MB, no problems....
Dick Ballard
occasionally use the Quicken Copy function to clear dead wood (once or
twice a year). I too would resist archiving anything because I like
having all that history readily available. The only "corruption" I've
experienced is occasional loss of addresses on some memorized
transactions. But that has happened even when the file size was much
smaller.
Dick Ballard
ball...@att.net
John Blaustein
noticed that when I click Reconcile in my checking account (the largest
account by far), it takes several seconds for the reconcile window to open.
Otherwise, everything is fast. My system is a PIII/1Ghz w/1GB RAM and it
runs Quicken much faster than my previous, slower system -- which is to be
expected.
John
Liam Devlin
Which version of Quicken are you using?
Q may have been intended for 4-5 MB 15 years ago, but they shouldn't
have a problem with bigger files now (IMHO, of course). Maybe they use a
crappy technique to access transactions, e.g., always starting at the
first one & reading until they get to the one you want or the end of the
file?
FWIW, my personal & retirement accounts are both just under 4 MB. I trim
my personal file each 01 Jan to drop 2 years ago. The retirement
accounts are cumulative from day one.
Jay Levitt
Li...@optonline.NOSPAM.net says...
> Q may have been intended for 4-5 MB 15 years ago, but they shouldn't
> have a problem with bigger files now (IMHO, of course). Maybe they use a
> crappy technique to access transactions, e.g., always starting at the
> first one & reading until they get to the one you want or the end of the
> file?
If you watch Quicken with Filemon from www.sysinternals.com, you can see
that this is indeed the case sometimes - it scans through the entire file
on occasion, though seemingly not on every single transaction. I haven't
spent enough time with it to figure out the pattern, not that knowing it
would help any.
Joseph J. Greenberg
increases the file size a bit), and then go on using the copy? do you rename
the copy back to the original name?
"Dick Ballard" <ball...@att.net> wrote in message
news:5tjt3vsujhhn0iaka...@4ax.com...
Dick Ballard
everything) and also removes dead space (deleted records or other data
whose file space has not been reused) thus making the resulting file
_smaller_. That is why I do it - to reduce file size and presumably
also improve performance.
This new file has a new name or location. You can choose to have
Quicken use the new file by its new name/location if you like, but
there are several other ways to handle this.
I usually tell Quicken to continue using the old version, then close
Quicken. I then rename the old file to another name (for backup
purposes in case something goes wrong) and then rename the new copy to
the original name using file manager (Windows Explorer). That makes it
easier to know which file is the current one in use.
You might be able to come up with a more convenient strategy. Just
remember that file operations outside of Quicken must be applied to
several files. What Quicken calls a "file" is actually several files
with the same name but different extensions.
Dick Ballard
ball...@att.net
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 06:13:39 GMT, "Joseph J. Greenberg"
R. C. White
I've been using Quicken since 1991. My Quicken fileset now totals over 15
MB, including over 12 MB in the QDF file.
My Quicken seems as fast as back in '91 when I first started. Of course,
I've upgraded everything - Quicken, the hardware it runs on, and the Windows
operating system - continually over the past dozen years. I'm currently
running Quicken 2000 Deluxe on Windows XP Pro on a year-old AMD XP2000+
system, including over 150 GB of disk space on some pretty fast hard drives.
In the early-to-middle years, there were frequent problems with data
corruption in Quicken (and other) files. Hard drives and other components
have become so much more reliable, though, that I haven't had any data
corruption problems in 3 years or more.
I keep my Quicken files backed up (several copies on the hard drives, plus
CD-RW), but have not tried to "slim down" the working copy. If I need to
look up what I paid for a new memory chip back in '93, I just open my credit
card Register, put the cursor in the Memo box, press Ctrl+F and tell it to
Find all mentions of "memory" - within 10 seconds, I have onscreen a report
of all my memory purchases in the past dozen years.
This topic comes up regularly, Joseph - a couple of times a year. Intuit
has often been quoted as blaming file size for slow performance, but there
have been MANY reports like mine from users who are having no such problems
with much larger Quicken filesets.
RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
(Retired - no longer licensed to practice)
San Marcos, TX
r...@corridor.net
"Joseph J. Greenberg" <ne...@greenberg.diespammerdie.net> wrote in message
news:3Vy%9.61661$HG.11...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
R. C. White
> running Quicken 2000 Deluxe
Whoops - I'm now running Q2002! that's 02! Deluxe, not Q2000. 8^{
Sorry 'bout that.
RC
"R. C. White" <r...@corridor.net> wrote in message
news:3e3fda7c$1...@nntp.corridor.net...
Wayne Fulton
ne...@greenberg.diespammerdie.net says...
>
>
They are telling you to expect catastrophic crashes.
I reached 32 MB with H&B 2000 before I had to give up and divide it. Along
the way up, I had 3 or 4 instances of corruption, when the file would crash
Quicken when opening. File-Copy from the last prior backup corrected those
instances, but finally failed to help the last time. My experience was that
restoring backup and adding the last few records would blow up again at same
point, but File-Copy first, and then add was OK. That suggests cause was
prior corruption instead of size, but I was unable to get past 32 MB.
I'm back up to 14MB now, uneventful so far.
An occasional Copy every few months is probably a good corrective thing to
do. It may lose a bit of corrupted data, but better that way than a crash.
Be sure to keep multiple sets of very frequent backup data when skating on
the edge. Standard backup rotation practices, only overwrite the one oldest
of them each time so you have staggered history levels available.
Catastrophe can occur at any time, always at the worse time.
Quicken is very silent about the limits of their database. I would much
prefer to have the one large file containing all records so that reports
have much meaning, but there came a time that was no longer possible for me.
The first initial start suffered a very few seconds delay when the file was
so large, but routine operation afterward did not seem much affected.
--
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"
Spoking
whole batch.
The line command will be "ren".
Eg:
ren myfile.* myfile2.*
will rename all files named myfile.qdf, myfile.qel, etc. to myfile2.qdf,
etc. The wild card (*) tells it to reuse the original ending. I don't
know if it will 'respect' long file names. I imagine not.
Handy little command.
Dick Ballard posted...
> The copy function within Quicken copies whatever you specify (I choose
> everything) and also removes dead space (deleted records or other data
> whose file space has not been reused) thus making the resulting file
> _smaller_. That is why I do it - to reduce file size and presumably
> also improve performance.
>
> This new file has a new name or location. You can choose to have
> Quicken use the new file by its new name/location if you like, but
> there are several other ways to handle this.
>
> I usually tell Quicken to continue using the old version, then close
> Quicken. I then rename the old file to another name (for backup
> purposes in case something goes wrong) and then rename the new copy to
> the original name using file manager (Windows Explorer). That makes it
> easier to know which file is the current one in use.
>
> You might be able to come up with a more convenient strategy. Just
> remember that file operations outside of Quicken must be applied to
> several files. What Quicken calls a "file" is actually several files
> with the same name but different extensions.
>
> Dick Ballard
> ball...@att.net
>
--
Spoking
<^>
_|_
Alan
copy about once a year and run validate perhaps 2 - 3 times per year. I do
worry that one day I will have trouble - I have 5 years of data - but I
think I will try to go one more year then archive perhaps the oldest 2 years
in one file.
alan
"Liam Devlin" <Li...@optonline.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:3E3F1721...@optonline.NOSPAM.net...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003
Han Broekman
news:MPG.18a9f170d...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
> For the renaming, if you can use DOS, or a DOS window, you can rename
> the whole batch.
>
> The line command will be "ren".
> Eg:
> ren myfile.* myfile2.*
> will rename all files named myfile.qdf, myfile.qel, etc. to
> myfile2.qdf, etc. The wild card (*) tells it to reuse the original
> ending. I don't know if it will 'respect' long file names. I imagine
> not.
>
> Handy little command.
>
>
Fine suggestion. But, I would add that it may be bets to keep Quicken
file names to 7dot3 (not even 8). Quicken may not handle names longer
than 8 characters well, and sure adds or substitutes the 8th character
with a number when it makes automatic backups. I suggest feb03 etc for
filenames. That leaves 2 additional characters for different
people/business.
--
Best regards
Han Broekman
email address is invalid
R. C. White
Good suggestion - but I don't like using a digit as the last character, such
as feb03. The automatic backups then become feb031, feb032, etc. (And
myfile2.qdf will become myfile21.qdf.) When I used such a system, briefly,
several years ago, I got pretty confused. ;>{
I'm not sure how Quicken handles longer names, but DOS would convert
february.qdf to februa~1.qdf, februa~2.qdf, etc. And february03.qdf could
become something REALLY confusing!
Keep 'em short - and don't end 'em with a numeral. ;<)
RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
(Retired - no longer licensed to practice)
San Marcos, TX
r...@corridor.net
"Han Broekman" <no...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns93194F86F...@199.45.49.11...
Rick Hess
>
> They are telling you to expect catastrophic crashes.
>
> I reached 32 MB with H&B 2000 before I had to give up and divide it. Along
> the way up, I had 3 or 4 instances of corruption, when the file would crash
> Quicken when opening.
That's discouraging. Mine is 20.4MB (Q2002 deluxe) and I was hoping
to never have to divide it. I'm having no detectable problems that I
know of.
> An occasional Copy every few months is probably a good corrective thing to
> do. It may lose a bit of corrupted data, but better that way than a crash.
I have found that my file INCREASES in size fith a FILE-COPY. I do
this once or twice a year.
> Be sure to keep multiple sets of very frequent backup data when skating on
> the edge. Standard backup rotation practices, only overwrite the one oldest
> of them each time so you have staggered history levels available.
> Catastrophe can occur at any time, always at the worse time.
Excellent advice.
Rick Hess
New Orleans
Victor Roberts
wrote:
>Hi, Han.
>
>Good suggestion - but I don't like using a digit as the last character, such
>as feb03. The automatic backups then become feb031, feb032, etc. (And
>myfile2.qdf will become myfile21.qdf.) When I used such a system, briefly,
>several years ago, I got pretty confused. ;>{
>
>I'm not sure how Quicken handles longer names, but DOS would convert
>february.qdf to februa~1.qdf, februa~2.qdf, etc. And february03.qdf could
>become something REALLY confusing!
>
>Keep 'em short - and don't end 'em with a numeral. ;<)
I know one reason for this NG is to solve current problems NOW, but
what about the bigger picture. Windows has had long file name
capability for about 7 or 8 years. Intuit has sold us Quicken
"updates" for each of these 7 or 8 years. Isn't it about time they
replace the old 16-bit DOS-based code in their products with 32-bit
Windows code so their products can properly work with long file names?
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
Liam Devlin
Yes, it is; but managers are loathe to diddle running code, so don't get
your hopes up.
Victor Roberts
<Li...@optonline.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>Victor Roberts wrote:
>> I know one reason for this NG is to solve current problems NOW, but
>> what about the bigger picture. Windows has had long file name
>> capability for about 7 or 8 years. Intuit has sold us Quicken
>> "updates" for each of these 7 or 8 years. Isn't it about time they
>> replace the old 16-bit DOS-based code in their products with 32-bit
>> Windows code so their products can properly work with long file names?
>
>Yes, it is; but managers are loathe to diddle running code, so don't get
>your hopes up.
I agree that if it is not broken it should not be fixed. But, is it
acceptable in 2003 to have multiple program platforms, QB and Quicken,
that are not reliable if used with file names longer than 8
characters? In view of current expectations, is this "running" code
when used in the "commercial, for sale" sense?
Han Broekman
news:mmv24vkc4ajggurtl...@4ax.com:
<snip>
>
> I agree that if it is not broken it should not be fixed. But, is it
> acceptable in 2003 to have multiple program platforms, QB and Quicken,
> that are not reliable if used with file names longer than 8
> characters? In view of current expectations, is this "running" code
> when used in the "commercial, for sale" sense?
>
I see a beta (sorry, make that alpha) testing opportunity for you Vic!
<Big grin>
Victor Roberts
wrote:
>I see a beta (sorry, make that alpha) testing opportunity for you Vic!
><Big grin>
After all my complaining, I should be willing to donate some time to
help improve these tools I use :-)
maryla...@gmail.com
Arthur Conan Doyle
>My is 2.6 GB. Yes GB. I have some slow downs once in a while, if I leave it up too often, it freezes, but just relaunching it fixes it.
The problem is that Quicken allows attachments to transactions. Those
attachments can be quite large if they are images or photos of receipts. Since
Intuit went to a single file container (qdata.qdf), it's not very transparent as
to what is causing the file size growth.
What's more problematic are the number of records. We don't know what the
internal pointer sizes are, so we don't know how many records of each type will
exceed the limit. You can see those when you view the data validation report.
Don in San Antonio
Ken Blake
curiosity, I checked to see how many transactions I had in it. It's
6374, almost the same as yours.
But the data file is about 20 times your size, probably because I scan
most documents.
Don in San Antonio
correct. Our start year and transaction count are amazingly similar.
Sharx35
bill.kel...@gmail.com
> What is the largest working (non-corrupted) data file people are working
> with? I have a 16MB one and tech support was trying to get me to archive
> most of it, "since Quicken wasn't intended for data files more than like 4
> or 5 megs". I like being able to run reports over a long period of time, so
> I'm resisting? Any thoughts?
Don in San Antonio
I've never had a corrupted file in Quicken except for one time when I intentionally deleted my OFX and OFXOld files. My data file doubled in size and the program continued to save backups for a month or so. Then all of the sudden my data file would indicate data corruption upon opening the Quicken program. Then much to my dismay I discovered the backups would not load either. I worked my way out of this mess by creating a copy of the reportedly corrupt file. To squeeze back onto topic - the new copied data file was reduced in size to half the corrupted data file. Lesson learned - don't delete files unless you know what your doing and if you do delete files and your Quicken data file suddenly doubles in size you need to take immediate action.