I was forced to use 'Never share' because of the issues faced during data entry in forms in HPB.
I wanted to know if there is any disadvantage in using 'never share' from the point of view, that in the future, if the same parent has more than one child, never share will still aggregate and store the data. Is it necessary to change the property of the parent to 'Store' after addition of the new member? What is the real difference between store and never share, when the parent has more than one child?
Why is it that we should use 'Never Share' only when necessary?
Please let me know if my question is unclear.
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.