One thing it does is dump the historical bill calendar data. In my case,
with some scheduled transactions having run for a decade or so, that could
be a LOT of data. I also schedule many once only transactions to make my
cashflow work. Dumping the bill calendar data for that could be a lot of
data too. Why just having all of it would slow things down is another
question, but, as you point out, we have no access to their db internal
design to understand just what the heck they are really doing.

"Chris Cowles" <spam_magnet[at]remove-me-bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:em7TkxysGHA.3684[at]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
- quote -

A KB article due to appear soon will explain more about the "band aid" --
but it isn't just a listof tasks which are removed by the utility (search
for some recent posts that say a bit more).
On the second point - fixing upon installation of the new version: I have
one dataset which wouldn't execut a stock spinoff in M06. All known fixes
failed to solve the issue -- clearly a problem with data integrity. Opening
the dataset in M07 fixed this problem. This kind of thing has occasionally
happened with conversion to a new version.


--
Michael Gordon
MVP


"JR" <nosp[at]m.com> wrote in message
newsMOdnQ6oa_tx5VbZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d[at]comcast.com...
- quote -

Without knowledge of the table design and relationships, nobody here can
tell why you it works. Maybe the schema is so horrible that removing the
'small table of scheduled tasks' makes a huge difference? That also assumes
it's just a 'small table'.

"JR" <nosp[at]m.com> wrote in message
newsMOdnQ6oa_tx5VbZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d[at]comcast.com...
- quote -

By biggest issues with recent versions of Money deal with performance. I've
read several posts that indicate deletion of recurring bills and deposits
and reentering them "solves" this issue for many in $2007. With that in
mind I download the trial version of $2007, tried navigating around and
performance seemed to be the same as $2006. Then I deleted bills area (using
utility provided) and I now see a significant increase in performance while
the size of the file did not change (38MB). That brings me to my question.
Is there any "technical" explanation as to why this "band aid" works? I
can't believe that the existence of a small table of scheduled tasks (in my
case 40) causes serious performance issues. Is this truly a "band aid" and
the problem will again raise its ugly head in time? Or did MS actually fix a
problem. If its truly a fix, why not fix my data upon installation of $2007
rather than making me delete and re-enter it? Will deleting and re-entering
my recurring bills and deposits help performance in $2006?