2

Does anyone have links to info or knowledge of the following behavior and if there is something I can do Administratively to rectify it?

A report, filtered on Time Frame of Created Date (custom object).

I notice that there are "ranges of days" that will process instantly. Usually it's in the 2 to 6 week range depending on the object and filter.

I can map to a literal DAY where the reports takes (example):

  • 3 seconds with 42 days in the Time Frame
  • 240 second with 43 days in the Time Frame

Then once it does load the 43 days, I can add days to it and it starts loading in 3 seconds again...

  • 3 seconds with 45 days in the Time Frame
  • 3 seconds with 49 days in the Time Frame
  • 250 second with 50 days in the Time Frame

It does seem to (by observation) tied to WEEKS. I've seen behavior like this off and on for years.

I can report on x-number of weeks, then add ONE DAY and it takes a LONG TIME to run, then once run (and of course, cached at the server level for a while), I can add DAYS, until at another WEEK level, it takes MINUTES to run again.

It seems like, when there is a cached run of the report, adding up to a certain number of days, it's able to (???) append the existing query:

  • "He wants the old data PLUS 15 days, just query the 15 days and ADD IT to the result"

Is this logical? Is there any evidence SF does this, and there are limits where:

  • "He wants the old data PLUS MORE THAN I'm comfortable appending - do a fresh query"

Hopefully I've showed enough of my "work" on investigating this that someone has encountered this, or better yet has detailed knowledge of how it works. This came about while trying to figure out why a Picklist we have (six options, and MOST of the data is actually blank in the field) is Filtering HORRIBLY, but when removed from the Filter and added to the Summary on the Report, it runs instantly.

Thanks!

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

Perhaps Customize Report filters: 'Invalid date' by @crop1645 might help provide you with some insight into the issue. Clearly it's one that SF is aware of to have come up with a hotfix so quickly.

Improve this answer
1
  • I wish that had some relationship to what I'm talking about, but other than having to do with the Date time range fields, it doesn't. :-/ I have no problem with the user interface or (starting to) run the report. The query itself (or the refresh of the page?!) is the concern. Thanks for trying, in any case. (my issue has also existed for a bare minimum of a year, possibly as much as four, but I've not put thought into it until 2014)
    – AMM
    Mar 12, 2015 at 18:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .