AFVV table — Order Operation Quantities and Dates
AFVV stores the quantity and scheduling data for one operation of a production or process order, keyed by AUFPL and APLZL, the same key used by AFVC. It exists because SAP split the volatile fields (scheduled and actual dates, operation quantities) away from the static operation description fields, which stayed in AFVC.
AFVV holds the per-operation quantities and dates for production and process order operations, sharing its key with AFVC. This page covers how to join it correctly, what actually changes on this table during scheduling and confirmation, and where consultants misread it as the source of truth for order status.
Published 16 Sept 2026· 1,036 words
What it stores
One row in AFVV represents the quantity and date information for a single operation belonging to a production order, process order, or the routing used during order creation. When an order is created from a routing, each operation gets a combined AFVC/AFVV pair identified by AUFPL and APLZL. AFVC carries the descriptive, largely static fields for the operation (control key, work center, standard value fields). AFVV carries the fields that change constantly during the life of the order: scheduled start and finish, actual start and finish once confirmations post, and the operation quantity to be produced or confirmed. The split exists for performance reasons, since dates and quantities are rewritten far more often than the descriptive data, and SAP wanted the frequently updated fields isolated in their own table rather than causing lock contention or unnecessary buffering invalidation on AFVC.
Key fields
- MANDT - client
- AUFPL - order operation network/routing number, links this operation set back to the order via AFKO-AUFPL
- APLZL - operation or activity internal counter within that AUFPL, shared with AFVC as the compound key
- MGVRG - the operation quantity to be produced or confirmed at this operation (yield quantity for this step)
- MEINH - unit of measure applying to the operation quantity fields on this row
- scheduled start and finish date/time fields (earliest and latest scheduled start/finish) that the scheduling run writes for the operation
- actual start and finish date/time fields that confirmation transactions write once work is reported against the operation
How it joins the data model
- AFVV-AUFPL = AFVC-AUFPL and AFVV-APLZL = AFVC-APLZL, the two tables are always read together as a pair for a given operation
- AFVV-AUFPL = AFKO-AUFPL, to get from an operation back to the order header (order number, basic dates, order type)
- AFVV-AUFPL/APLZL match the same keys referenced on AFRU when confirmations are posted against that operation
- AFVV-AUFPL/APLZL correspond to the split-off user fields held on AFVU for the same operation
How to read it safely
AFVV is client-dependent and has no natural high-selectivity field of its own outside its key, so it is never queried standalone. The only sane entry point is AUFPL, obtained first from AFKO by order number, or from AFVC when the operation number or work center is known. Selecting on AFVV without a bound AUFPL, or scanning date ranges directly on this table across all orders, will hit an enormous, largely unindexed scan on most systems since there is no secondary index built for arbitrary date filtering. Always resolve the order first, get its AUFPL, then read AFVC/AFVV for that AUFPL and filter operations client-side or by APLZL range.
How to prove it in the data
Symptom: an operation shows no actual dates even though the order status says partially confirmed. Look up AFKO for the order number to get AUFPL. Read AFVC for that AUFPL to find the APLZL of the suspect operation and confirm its control key allows confirmation. Then read AFVV for the same AUFPL/APLZL and check whether the actual start/finish fields are still blank while the scheduled fields are populated. Blank actual dates with populated scheduled dates confirms the confirmation never posted against that specific operation, even if the order header shows movement elsewhere.
ECC vs S/4HANA
AFVV continues to exist as a transparent table in S/4HANA and is still populated by order creation, scheduling, and confirmation the same way it was in ECC. Reporting is increasingly built on CDS views that expose order operations at a higher level of abstraction, but the underlying quantity and date storage for operations has not been restructured away from the AFVC/AFVV split. Consultants working directly in SE16N or building custom reports still read AFVV the same way they did in ECC.
Common pitfalls
- Treating AFVV as the record of what actually happened on the shop floor: it holds what scheduling calculated and what confirmations have posted so far, not a guaranteed reflection of physical progress if confirmations are backdated, reversed, or simply not yet entered
- Reading dates on AFVV in isolation from AFVC and concluding an operation is late, without checking the control key on AFVC, since some control keys suppress scheduling relevance or confirmation entirely for that operation
- Assuming APLZL numbering is stable or sequential in a way that lets you infer operation order without also reading the operation sequence number on AFVC, APLZL is an internal counter, not the shop-floor operation number
- Joining AFVV to AFKO on order number directly, order number is not a field on AFVV, the join must go through AUFPL
- Expecting one row per confirmation, AFVV holds the current cumulative quantity and date picture for the operation, individual confirmation history lives on AFRU, not here
- Modifying AFVV fields directly outside standard transactions to fix a stuck date or quantity, this desynchronizes the row from AFVC's control key logic and from order status, and the next scheduling or confirmation run can produce inconsistent or duplicate postings
Whose problem this is
Scheduling and date discrepancies on AFVV are a PP consultant question, tied to the scheduling parameters on the order type and routing. Quantity discrepancies that trace back to confirmations are shared with production execution or shop floor teams who own the confirmation transactions. A functional consultant should own the diagnosis before anyone touches the table directly.
Related SAP objects
Reviewed pages this object connects to in the ERPClimb knowledge graph.
Source: ERPClimb — https://erpclimb.com/sap-tables/afvvERPClimb is an independent platform and is not affiliated with SAP SE. Reference pages are written and reviewed by SAP consultants for learning and troubleshooting.