- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
Back in January, I went through the process of migrating my 12 years of Quicken data from Mac (2007, running on 10.5.8) to Windows (2010r4, running on XPSP2). Once complete, I found that Quicken/W has unacceptably poor performance when working with accounts containing a large number of transactions.
In an investment register with about 5000 transactions, attempting to add, remove or modify an investment transaction takes six seconds or more to complete after hitting <Enter>. In general, this "lag time" seems to vary linearly with the number of transactions in the investment register. Switching from single to two-line registers makes no difference. Validating, super-validating, saving a copy also make no difference.
Based on my testing, this does not appear to be a machine, RAM or disk speed issue. Other software runs at acceptable speed, and Quicken produces reports and graphs reasonably quickly. It appears that any operation on an investment register causes Quicken/W to revisit most or all transactions in that register! I'm astonished that a product like Quicken would have such a fundamental flaw in its datastore, but the evidence seems to point that way.
Searching Intuit's support forums produces no advice other than "delete old investment transactions." This is not a practical solution, as I find that several times a year I need to delve into historic data, and also I would lose historic performance information for long-term holdings. Also, it ignores the basic performance flaw: in a modern database with only 20-30 transactions displayed at a time, it's unheard-of for there to be a multi-second transaction lag time!
I posted on this topic back in January, asking if anybody on this forum had run into a similar problem, and what workarounds or best practices they use to resolve it. Although I did not get any replies then, I'm certain that there are forum members who are responsible for larger and more complex Quicken data sets than mine, and who would have run into this problem. Alternatively, if you have a large data sets and have not experienced this slowdown, please post a reply as well, as it will help me in my efforts to solve this.
Thanks.
In an investment register with about 5000 transactions, attempting to add, remove or modify an investment transaction takes six seconds or more to complete after hitting <Enter>. In general, this "lag time" seems to vary linearly with the number of transactions in the investment register. Switching from single to two-line registers makes no difference. Validating, super-validating, saving a copy also make no difference.
Based on my testing, this does not appear to be a machine, RAM or disk speed issue. Other software runs at acceptable speed, and Quicken produces reports and graphs reasonably quickly. It appears that any operation on an investment register causes Quicken/W to revisit most or all transactions in that register! I'm astonished that a product like Quicken would have such a fundamental flaw in its datastore, but the evidence seems to point that way.
Searching Intuit's support forums produces no advice other than "delete old investment transactions." This is not a practical solution, as I find that several times a year I need to delve into historic data, and also I would lose historic performance information for long-term holdings. Also, it ignores the basic performance flaw: in a modern database with only 20-30 transactions displayed at a time, it's unheard-of for there to be a multi-second transaction lag time!
I posted on this topic back in January, asking if anybody on this forum had run into a similar problem, and what workarounds or best practices they use to resolve it. Although I did not get any replies then, I'm certain that there are forum members who are responsible for larger and more complex Quicken data sets than mine, and who would have run into this problem. Alternatively, if you have a large data sets and have not experienced this slowdown, please post a reply as well, as it will help me in my efforts to solve this.
Thanks.