It’s odd because in E10, it defaults to BTCustNum.
I working with support now and then are not seeing any difference between OrderHed.CustNum and OrderHed.BTNum.
I’m hoping they come up with something.
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 12:38 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: E10: Tracing a bad BAQ
When I created the query in E9, it naturally linked to Orderhed.CustNum and Customer.CustNum.
I pulled data as well and BTCustNum always was the same value as CustNum. Changing the relationship to BTCUstNum, it did give a slight performance difference (slower). Either way I link it, the same amount of records displayed.
Hope that helps.
Miguel A. Santillan
Compass Manufacturing Systems
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 1:26 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: E10: Tracing a bad BAQ
Thanks Jim.
I had called support but haven’t had any luck yet.
I did some testing and the issue appears to be with the join between customer and orderhed.
The BAQ designer will automatically link Customer.CustNum to OrderHed.BTCustNum, which is what I want but this appears to be the problem.
If I toggle it to OrderHed.CustNum, the BAQ runs in less than a second.
Any ideas if there is something I can do on my own to fix this?
[cid:f2fd2d.png@980d6bc4.43b1a29c]
Joe Rojas
Director of Information Technology
(781) 408-9278 Mobile
(781) 573-0291 Local
(781) 232-5191 Fax
[http://matsinc.com/images/e-mail-signatures/tagline.jpg%5d
[http://matsinc.com/images/e-mail-signatures/graphics/logo_matsinc.png%5d<http://matsinc.com> [http://matsinc.com/images/e-mail-signatures/graphics/icon_twitter.png%5d <http://twitter.com/Mats_Inc> [http://matsinc.com/images/e-mail-signatures/graphics/icon_facebook.png%5d <http://www.facebook.com/commercial.flooring> [http://matsinc.com/images/e-mail-signatures/graphics/icon_youtube.png%5d <http://www.youtube.com/user/MatsIncTV> [http://matsinc.com/images/e-mail-signatures/graphics/icon_pinterest.png%5d <http://www.pinterest.com/contractfloors/> [http://matsinc.com/images/e-mail-signatures/graphics/icon_blog.png%5d <http://matsinc.com/blog>
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 4:24 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: E10: Tracing a bad BAQ
The joins appear to be good and nothing crazy jumps out.
One is a view that has the standard and the UD tables in it so that it looks like a single table, and the other just has the standard orderhed table as you discovered. I have not seen a problem with retrieving things from the view over the standard table so don't have any specific advice. Might do a simple query on just erp/dbo.orderhed and see how the performance is to the view and to the standard table.
If it is way out of whack a call to Epicor may be in order, they may have some tuning/rebuild advice.
Jim Kinneman
Encompass Solutions, Inc.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]