We have a Scan List of approximately 420 entries in SalesCQ, and we are generating an Email for each Customer to the Queue. The email consists of a short cover sheet and a one-page Word letter, with some graphics.

Problem: It is moving frightfully slow. Approximately 1 email is being generated every 15-20 seconds. At this rate, it will take us 2 Hrs+ to generate our list.

(Note that when we generate the Queue from O/E for Invoices, or Statements from A/R, it only takes about 1-3 seconds for each record.)

Hardware Details:
Server: Win 2003 Enterprise Edition SP2; Xeon processor; 4 GB RAM' 3 GHz
Client: XP; 3 GB RAM
Lan: 1 Gbps

Any recommendations?

Hi Samuel,

You can't compare the speed between emailing SalesCQ mail merge documents - which relies on a Word MailMerge process - versus emailing specifications, which only prints a spec to a PDF document.

I was able to create the MailMerge Word document (preview, not emailing) using the sample 'AdagioContacts.dot' template for 200 customers on a network drive in about 15 seconds. So something else is getting in the way - and not that MailMerge in SalesCQ is generally slow.

A few things to try:
- How long does it take to just preview the mail merge (click Letter, not Email)? If really fast then the emailing process is the slowness culprit. Maybe spam blocking is preventing fast emailing.
- How long does it take to just preview the AdagioContacts.dot template. If significantly faster than previewing your template, then the file size of the template could be a culprit.
- Could virus checking be getting in the way? You'd have to investigate this one, depending on what is in use.
- Are you emailing 'Now' or to the queue? If 'Now', then perhaps try adding to the queue instead to take the sending of the email out of the timing equation.
- If the file size of the logo is big (and it was shrunk on the Mail Merge document), perhaps try re-sizing the logo file in a graphic program like MS Paint or something like that, then re-insert the logo already sized. Sending 400+ logos at 1Mb each will be way slower than sending that many at 50Kb each.

- How long does it take to just preview the mail merge: I just tried this - the mailmerge to letters took one minute. This is for 428 records.

- Could virus checking be getting in the way? Possibly. I have asked the person involoved to investigate this with the IT person.

- Are you emailing 'Now' or to the queue? We are emailing to the Queue, not to "Now".

- If the file size of the logo is big... The size of the Word template file is 164 kb - I do not think that this is particularly large.


From all this analysis, it appears that we may have a problem with the AV, or something else is slowing us down. I do not think that this is a result of the emailing process, since we are not selecting "Now" and the emailing should not kick in at this point.

To the best of your knowledge, should the program itseslf (SalesCQ) be quick for the Mailmerge to Email?

"Quick" is a relative term. If the alternative was to type the letters on a manual typewriter, then 15-20 seconds per letter would appear instantaneous.

Was your test on the same setup as your client's or was it on your local hard disk. If you are moving all of this up and down a network, and you have antivirus checking every document being created, it'll be "slow".

Andrew, we don't use manual typewriters nowadays. I do not think that your analogy is relevant.

Even on networks, when the system is setup properly, we have certain expectations.

The test was performed on the client’s actual system, using their live data and an actual application – emails that they would like to send off to their customers.

When I conduct the same application on my stand-alone laptop, using an exact copy of the clients’ data, I generated 424 emails into the queue in about 3 minutes. That’s an average of almost 2 records per second. Over a decent network, I would not expect the process to be as quick, but I also would not expect it to slow down to 3 or 4 records per minute!

Time to talk to "the IT guy" and get him to explain the difference in performance. BTW - how much RAM do they have in their server and workstations?