We are just testing out the QDC For QVDs release and are coming across an issue when trying to view stats on our entities.
All QVDs we import list all fields/columns as 'Ugly' data
(i.e. 9 Total Record Count 0 Good Record Count 0 Bad Record Count 9 Ugly Record Count)
We have looked through the user guide but limited information is noted in regards to what defines 'ugly' data
(field data is
For reference, the QVD is a simple table with 9 rows and 3 fields.
Any assistance would be very much appreciated.
So I have an update for those playing at home....
It seems if we use the STORE command from a table created from an Excel spreadsheet - we get the above 'Ugly' data and QDC is unable to read(?) the data
We need to Load the data from Excel into Qlik, then STORE into CSV, then Load the data again from the CSV and then STORE into QVD, and QDC can then read it successfully.
Unsure if this is a bug or if Qlik Core (which performs the internal QDC QVD to CSV conversion) requires some kind of driver? I always assumed QVD was a a standalone format, not a container. I can't understand why the original source (coming into Qlik) makes a difference on the layout/formatting/codepage/structure of the QVD file.
I haven't played with QDC yet (it's next on my list when I get some time!) but what you are describing does sounds pretty odd. I always assumed that once the data was in QVD format that the header and content were standardised on what worked for the QIX engine. What happens if you save the original excel file as a CSV and then load / create a QVD? I assume the original excel file is loading OK and the data is usable. Is there any difference in the field tags created by the engine when it loads the data? That might provide a clue. Hopefully someone more enlightened than I responds!
Thank you for sharing this. We are looking into this specific use case now. Stay tuned. In the meantime...
An ugly record means that one or more fields fails a validation. The online help (accessed in the upper right under "Support") can give you a wealth more details. I encourage you to explore.
At a high-level, here is the description.
These records may match the record format but some of the field data is problematic. Ugly records are configurable but include data that don't match the field datatype. Examples include invalid data formats; data containing invalid or unprintable characters, or data that don't match a user-specified pattern or regular expression.
In your specific case, it would appear that there is a datatype associated with the field that QDC is seeing data for which does not match.
The above is an example. Please stay tuned. As I said, we are investigating your particular case now. Can you tell me which release of QDC for QVDs you are using?
Thanks @Christopher_Ortega - no problem, we were concerned we were doing something incorrectly but hopefully we can get to the bottom of things!
The internal help is great - finalised the Partner learning module for QDC so have a bit of a better understanding of everything
We are using QDC version September (currently having issues with December edition so have a support ticket in!)
@treysmithdev Haven't checked resident load yet - will add that to my list!
But strangely enough this -
Left is the 'working' QVD and right is 'broken' QVD
As you can note, the working QVD header seems to note 'Unknown' whereas the broken one provides more specific (and more accurate re: data)