RPD Design Questions

Sariel-SW

Dear All,

I have made the RPD with 2 facts and 3 dimensions as

Dimension 1 -->Fact 1<-- Dimension 2

Dimension 2 -->Fact 2

(The join is done on Physical Layer)

When creating the analysis in Web, putting Dimension 1 and Dimension 2 together with both facts, only Fact 2 will have figures. I think the reason behind should be Dimension 2 is no linkage with Fact 1

However, we would like to show the Fact 1 figure with both Dimension 1 and 2, is it possible to do so? Or I should move the join from Physcial Layer to BMM Layer?

Christian Berg-0racle

@Rajesh Gurram - BI - are you serious? 1=1 is the last option you should think about since it's the worst solution conceivable for a simple and straight-forward question like the one the OP asked.

LTS content levels is the way to go for. Honestly, if you reference Jeffs presentation, then make sure that you read farther than just slide #12 which he immediately points out as the first *option* and on slide #13 explicitly puts *CAUTION*.

Go one slide further to slide #14 and he presents the proper solution of LTS content levels! In all seriousness, such destructive "advice" and then begging for points gets on my nerves and is more than counterproductive since it leads the OP off on a completely wrong tangent!

@Sariel-SW please do the intelligent thing and model this properly in your RPD.

Rajesh Gurram - BI

You need to create a complex join with non conformed dimension and the fact with 1=1 and set the logical level of the measure to total for a non conformed dimension.

You can refer: https://s3.amazonaws.com/rmc_docs/biforum2011/Mcquigg_Metadata.pdf

Pls mark if correct/helpful.

Christian Berg-0racle

@Rajesh Gurram - BI - are you serious? 1=1 is the last option you should think about since it's the worst solution conceivable for a simple and straight-forward question like the one the OP asked.

LTS content levels is the way to go for. Honestly, if you reference Jeffs presentation, then make sure that you read farther than just slide #12 which he immediately points out as the first *option* and on slide #13 explicitly puts *CAUTION*.

Go one slide further to slide #14 and he presents the proper solution of LTS content levels! In all seriousness, such destructive "advice" and then begging for points gets on my nerves and is more than counterproductive since it leads the OP off on a completely wrong tangent!

@Sariel-SW please do the intelligent thing and model this properly in your RPD.

Sariel-SW

Thanks both.

Christian, you are right. I am just using the second option from Jeff's PPT (#14). I think the first one will have some unexpected results...

Christian Berg-0racle

Rather "highly expected" results like forcing a cartesian product across the two facts involved. In a production system with multi-million (or -billion) fact tables that's about as bad as it gets.

Rajesh Gurram - BI

Christian Berg,

         Thanks for correcting and pointing to the best solution.

Your said:

" In all seriousness, such destructive "advice" and then begging for points gets on my nerves and is more than counterproductive since it leads the OP off on a completely wrong tangent!"

Hope you are aware that many people who post questions in this forum don't come back and update if their problem was resolved/helpful. It's just a reminder to them to come back to the question and mark "IF" the solution provided helped them. You don't have to be so rude in responding to other's response.

Christian Berg-0racle

It's easy. Don't propose outrageously bad solutions like this without explanation and I won't call you out. Period.