Variance calculation - exclude orders whithout variance key

[Former Member]

Hi guys,

I would like to ask, wheter it is possible to exclude orders without the variance key from the variance calculation.

There are plenty of orders whithout variance key within our company and they just slow down the variance calculation.

(KKS1, RKKKS1N0, KKS2)

Thanks in advance.

Regards

Peter

Edited by: Peter Jankech on May 26, 2009 8:34 AM

[Former Member]

We experienced the same performance issues for RKKKS1N0. From the previous responses, I'm not sure if the report selection should be not closed orders (AUFK-PHAS3) or not deleted orders (AUFK-LOEKZ). I checked our orders in table AUFK. If select the not closed, there are 211,000 orders. If select the not deleted, there are 28,000 orders. The background job for RKKKS1N0 runs for 5 to 6 hours (scheduled weekly job). If run daily, the run time does not have much improvement either. If archiving tables not an option, is there any other ways to reduce the run time for this report?

Thank you!

[Former Member]

Well guys,

the only think, that helps, is to set the status DLFL (Deletion Flag - I0076) fot an order.

In this case, it will not be included into the variance calculation.

[Former Member]

hello,

Variance Key is the link / criteria, based on which variance is calculated.

If any object is NOT having variance key in its master data, It will not be included for variance calculation.

Please check all your objects.

revert for further clarifications,

santosh

[Former Member]

Hello Santosh,

if an order has no variance key, it is selected whitin the variance calculation (RKKKS1N0).

Afterwards it is included into the category "Not relevant" and the error message "KV215 - Order has no variance key" raises. If we have e.g. 150.000 orders whithout the variance key, they are all interpreted as "not relevant" and for each of them the error message appears.

In my opinion it is useless, it increases the runtime of the variance calculatin and whithout them we might increase the performance of the variance calculation.

Thanks for reply

Regards

Peter

[Former Member]

Hi Peter,

pls. try the following for one order to see if it works fine. In PP-order master set the order status to CLSD (Closed). This order will not be processed during month-end closing.

And this happens for every PP-order as every month-end closing job takes care if each order receives additional postings since the last month-end closing, no matter if the order has a variance key or not.

The tricky thing is (and its depending on your business cases) to define rules, which PP-order can receive this status and which not. The status itself can be set by mass processing (program PPIO_ENTRY).

When we did this the first time the runtime of the month-end jobs for PP-orders decreases up to 10 times...

Best regards, Christian

[Former Member]

Hi Christian,

thanks for attention.

I am aware of PP-order archiving. And I am looking for additional way how to increase the performance of variance calculation.

I have noticed one additional thing...

If I process an order, which is not relevant for the variance calculation (has not the status DLV - delivered or TECO - technically closed) via the transaction for individual processing - KKS2, the order is not reported in any of "Processing categories".

If I process the same order viac RKKKS1N0, the order is reported in the category "Not relevant".

There are following Processing categories whitin the report:

Variances Calculated

Not relevant

Minor error

Error

Objects selected - sum

Thanks

Regards

Peter

[Former Member]

Hi Peter,

its interesting, kks2 (KV 017) and RKKKS1N0 (KV 215) raise different messages for an PP-order without variance key... But the main thing is, if one of the messages is raised, the order is already checked and thats the case that consumes performance...

As I mentioned above, order status CLSD (Closed) does not consider the order for variance calculation anymore (no matter if its archived or not) and thats the way it should be.

Did you check the result analysis version for the orders where you know that variance calculation should not be executed? Thats the only thing that comes into my mind...

Best regards, Christian