Hi all,
We are encountering issues when ingesting a batch file for the Individual Profile class. The error message displayed is:
"Record size exceeded the limit".
Out of approximately 4.8M records, 7,450 records failed (~0.15%). According to Adobe documentation, the maximum size of a record class is 100 KB (hard). Based on this, the error seems to be valid, and we plan to apply changes to the ingestion process.
However, we previously had ingested a similar file without any issues. After analyzing that file, we identified 78 profiles (external_ids) exceeding the 100 KB threshold, as shown in the attached screenshot. This should have not occurred with a hard limit of 100KB per profile record.
Questions:
We need clarification on these points to prevent similar issues in future ingestions.
This is the query we have used to detected the records > 100KB:
WITH row_sizes AS (
SELECT length(
to_json(
struct(
identityMap,
_tenant)
)
) AS row_size_bytes, identityMap['externalID'][0].id AS external_id, _ACP_SYSTEM_METADATA.ingestTime AS ingest
FROM productos_cliente
)
SELECT external_id, MAX(row_size_bytes) AS max_row_size_bytes, COUNT(*) AS rows_over_threshold
FROM row_sizes
WHERE row_size_bytes > 100000 AND external_id IS NOT NULL AND CAST(from_unixtime(ingest / 1000) AS DATE) > '2025-11-01'
GROUP BY external_id
ORDER BY max_row_size_bytes DESC
LIMIT 500;
Thanks!
Views
Replies
Total Likes
Screenshot attached.
Views
Replies
Total Likes
@jlasso71 Are we saying these 78 profiles were ingested after 2025-11-01? You said previously ingested so I'm wondering.
An older batch may have been accepted into UPS in the past as the 100 KB guardrail was possibly only gradually implemented over time but newer ingestions should indeed fail with records above 100 KB.
NB: This may require a Support case if this needs a deeper investigation.
Hi @Tof_Jossic ,
Yes, the records for these 78 profiles were successfully ingested after 2025-11-01 via dataflow_01 (no issues reported). Since that date, we have full confidence in the data ingested through dataflow_01 into dataset_01.
I mentioned previously ingested because today we are facing issues when ingesting similar data through a different dataflow into dataset_02.
In summary, the issue now occurs in dataflow_02 → dataset_02, even though the 100 KB guardrail does not seem to have been strictly enforced in dataset_01.
Thanks!
Views
Replies
Total Likes