Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply

Too many subgroups to display from web access

Copper Contributor
Posts: 123
Country: Canada

Too many subgroups to display from web access

Hello,  I'm new to the community and I hope someone can help me out or point me in the right direction.

Our company has just upgraded to ACT 2013 (Web).  We have a group which has multiple subgroups named from 1 to 5000.  When expanding this group when accessing through a web browser the subgroups aren't displayed in the tree.  It says, "there are too many records to show...". 

 

Also a dialog box pops up that says, "This record has exceeded the maximum number of sub-records that can be displayed in the tree view.  To view the full list of sub-records, view the group in detail view."

 

When looking at the group from a default layout I can see all of the subgroups which is fine. Also everything is fine when accessing through the Windows program.

What I really wanted to know was how many sub-records is the maximum to be displayed in the tree?

I believe that I will have to make a subgroup called 1000s and then painfully move sub groups 1 to 1000 one at a time to this 1000s group.  I know there has to be a way to move more than one at a time but have not figured it out and I am hoping that someone could also point me in the direction for that. 

Any help or input would be much appreciated.  Thanks in advance!

-Eric

Copper Contributor
Posts: 123
Country: Canada

Re: Too many subgroups to display from web access

I also seem to have some performance issues.  We upgraded from ACT 2006 and all of our users wish we would have stuck with that version.  I know it isn't a network issue as when I open the database on the server itself I still see the same latency.  The lag isn't huge but it is enough to tick everyone off.

Seems like switching to contacts is faster but then when switching to groups there is a bit of lag.  I have to wonder if the way we have the groups setup is a factor in all of this.

The company uses groups to keep track of files that we have which is probabably not best practice.  I'm trying to get them to start using opportunities for this but it is always hard to change the status quo.

Hope someone can give me some input...