Expand my Community achievements bar.

SOLVED

Adobe data feeds post_visid_high & post_visid_low show NULL value

Avatar

Level 1

Hi everyone, I tried to look up in Adobe documentation but didn't find the answer that I need.

We consume the Adobe daily hit_data data feed file and calculated the Visit and Visitor as below.

However, we got NULL for some rows in post_visid_highpost_visid_low, VISIT_PAGE_NUM and VISIT_NUM that it never happened before, I wonder if it is expected or that was issue with the data feed?

 

 

reference link : https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/analytics/export/analytics-data-feed/data-feed-contents/d...

Visits

  1. Concatenate post_visid_high, post_visid_low, visit_num, and visit_start_time_gmt.
  2. Count the unique number of values.

Visitors

All methods Adobe uses to identify unique visitors (custom visitor ID, Experience Cloud ID service, etc.) are all ultimately calculated as a value in post_visid_high and post_visid_low. The concatenation of these two columns can be used as the standard of identifying unique visitors regardless of how they were identified as a unique visitor. If you would like to understand which method Adobe used to identify a unique visitor, use the column post_visid_type.

  1. Concatenate post_visid_high and post_visid_low.
  2. Count the unique number of values.
1 Accepted Solution

Avatar

Correct answer by
Community Advisor and Adobe Champion

Hi, how many null values do you have comparatively?

 

Could these be coming from old cached versions of your pages using old s_code implementations? I had a discussion with some folks on this not too long ago... we chalked it up to "it is the way it is" due to a mix of old and new implementations... 

 

Not an answer I particularly like... but sometimes it's the best you get?  If we aren't talking about a huge loss, it may not be worth going down the rabbit hole... 

View solution in original post

1 Reply

Avatar

Correct answer by
Community Advisor and Adobe Champion

Hi, how many null values do you have comparatively?

 

Could these be coming from old cached versions of your pages using old s_code implementations? I had a discussion with some folks on this not too long ago... we chalked it up to "it is the way it is" due to a mix of old and new implementations... 

 

Not an answer I particularly like... but sometimes it's the best you get?  If we aren't talking about a huge loss, it may not be worth going down the rabbit hole...