This content has been marked as final. Show 8 replies
By Default the storage is Store, we only take an effort to make a member Never Share only when needed, where as there is no harm in making a member Never Share.
In you situation why you have forced to use Never Share, I guess you know the answer "Implied Sharing".
For more information have a look at (Determining How Members Store Data Values):
Thanks for your response.
Yes, you are right that it is to prevent implicit sharing.
But my question is more specifically for hierarchies that change over a period of time.
For example, if today i have one member in under a parent, i set the property to never share. In future, if another member is added under the same parent, are there any negative consequences of leaving the member as never share. I know it still aggregates the data but wondering if there is more to it.
There is a document which talks about implied share
Understanding Essbase Implied Shares and their effect on Planning Data Form Design [ID 763285.1]
Essbase by design make one child parent to share value with child. (For better Calc performance)
So once the never shared member gets more children under it, it automatically will have its own block (which we forcefully created by tagging it as never share) so no harm.
Thanks for the document. It was very helpful.
This might be a stupid question, but it is really nagging me at the back of my head.
If I have an alternate hierarchy which changes frequently over time, is it prudent to keep the parents as 'Never share', rather than store, to reduce the maintenance activities?
Because if the parent which has two children today, has only one child tomorrow, and if the user forgets to change store to never share, the historical aggregated data for the parent will be overwritten.