Do not input private or sensitive data. View Qlik Privacy & Cookie Policy.
Skip to main content

Announcements
Qlik Connect 2026! Turn data into bold moves, April 13 -15: Learn More!
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
braham
Creator
Creator

Slow reload times for QlikView using QlikView desktop

Afternoon,

I would appreciate some insight from those who have a better understanding of the internal processing of QlikView than I do.

The largest model in our environment is rebuilt everyday via a scheduled task in QMC. It takes around 40 minutes to rebuilt.

When I open that same model using QlikView Desktop and build the model it can take up to 1:30 depending on other processing that is been done on the server. I tested the rebuild and ran it when there was no other activity on the system (after working hours). It still takes over 1 hour to build.

I am puzzled as to why there is such difference in the build times using these 2 methods of rebuilding, as I assume they have the same processing engine. I am running my desktop rebuild on the same server that runs QMC. I log onto that server using a remote desktop connection. We also only have 1 instance of QMC running on that server. I have carried out this exercise as well as once of my colleagues and get the same results.

I am using May 2023 version of QlikView.

I would appreciate some insight into why this is happening.

Labels (2)
10 Replies
marcus_sommer

Interesting - it reduced the cause mainly to user respectively admin. Some differences are thinkable if there are many I/O requests against the storage/network by prioritizing the authentication/authorization against other system-handles and/or saving the result in some way and avoiding/shorten further requests. By many smaller loads in loops the I/O and also the initializing of the loads may create a significant overhead.

Personally I never noticed a significant difference between qvb.exe and qv.exe loads regardless of the user-type and I think that your scenario is rather unusual.

I would now try to monitor the core-usage more closely. Do both runs take the same number of cores and also how is the frequency? I would claim they must be different in some way and it should get you nearer to the cause behind - which may be differences in the energy/power management controlled by local/domain policies.