[GNC] QIF Import Problem

[David Carlson]

I would suggest that it would probably create a very ponderous data file to
cover 15 years' data.  I have 10 years' history in my current file and I
regret putting so much into one file, as it generates lags of several
seconds for some very common operations, and minutes to open or close..

I would suggest at most one or two years of history for your GnuCash file.
Then the one-account-at-a-time procedure is not so overwhelming.

I think, but I am not sure, that Quicken will continue to work off-line if
you want to review older history in the future.

David Carlson

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 2:53 PM Colin McLellan <colin.mclellan at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to switch to GnuCash from Quicken 2016 and I'm running into a
> problem where all transfers between accounts are duplicated after the QUF
> import.  I am aware that this is not a new problem and I have read meany
> threads on here going back at least ten years about this.
>
> I tried exporting just one month of my chequing and savings accounts to
> separate QIF files and then importing them into GnuCash simultaneously and
> separately.  In each case, 100% of the time all transfers between the
> accounts are duplicated in each account.  Whatever is supposed to be
> flagging these duplicates is not working.  If I do them separately, I do
> get the option to select the duplicates, but ultimately I want to import
> the past 15 years of transaction level detail, and I am not willing to go
> the manual route.
>
> My question is: Is there any new information about a solution to this
> problem?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Colin
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see
> https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information.
> -----
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
>


-- 
David Carlson