Item Ledger Compression in Navision version 3.6 on SQL 2000

noved

We currently use 3.6 (modified quite a bit) on a SQL 2000 database. We will be upgrading the executable to 5.1 and will be using SQL 2005 Enterprise in the near future. However, we have also wanted to compress entries as part of our housekeeping and started (in a test environment) with the Item Ledger Entry. We compressed the entries using a period length of 1 Year and retained the Global Dimension 1 Code (Site code for our company). We completed this through the end of our fiscal year 2007 but are seeing that the valuation of the inventory is off in its total inventory valuation. Quantities are also not matching. I have read in various postings (here and elsewhere) that the compression routine for the ILE is "unpredictable" and often avoided. So far, I would agree and do not have the "warm and fuzzy" feeling that I would like to have since this involves deleting and combining entries. :-s

Has anyone had similar experiences? If so, would compressing the G/L, Customer Ledger and/or Vendor Ledger entries, instead, be worth pursuing?

Any experience with these and the "dos and don'ts" would be appreciated.

Thank you

Alex_Chow

Don't compress Item Ledger! It'll cause more problems than it's worth.

Compress other areas that's not related to inventory.

bstoyano

sorry, this post was by mistake

noved

Thank you, Alex. Are there other date compression areas that are similarly problematic or is the Item Ledger the only one to avoid?

David_Singleton

As Alex says, never compress Item Ledger Entries. In fact 3.6 was the worst version for this. (well 3.01 was the worst, but very few people run that version so you don't see as many disasters).

As to compressing other ledgers, the question is why? If its to increase performance, it really wont help that much, and still can cause problems. GL you will have problems with Analysis views and dimensions. With Customer and Vendor you will have issues with back dated AR and AP reports.

It really is not worth it.

Oh and before even thinking of this, you will need to have your partner customize the compression routines to match all the mods you have in your system.

noved

Thank you, David for the reply. It is looking like this may require more thought (and preparation) if we do go forward with compression. We were not looking into this as being an "end all" to performance improvement but just one of many incremental steps.

Perhaps this is a step to be avoided.