This content has been marked as final. Show 4 replies
872230 wrote:This limit is in Essbase Studio not the RDBMS. When trying to build the SQL statement, it fails if it trys to put more than 100 members into the in clause
I read few posts about Oracle having a 1000 member limit in IN clause. I wanted to know the following -
1. Is that an Oracle RDBMS limit? Won't we encounter the error if we have SQL server as the back-end?
2. Does the IN clause need to have > 1000 level 0 members to get the error? The reason I ask is I built a sample cube, recursive hierarchy, through studio and pulled a report containing more than 1500 records. I have to say the report was for a specific member having different period, amount values.Yes, but only if you are querying an upper level member that has more than 100 level 0 descendants. It does not matter that there are 10000s of level zero members in the cube, just what the qurey is trying to use. so if you have a parent that has 50 level 0 children you are fine. if you pull a parent with 200 level zero children you will have issues
It looks like there is an alternative to this by modifying the system generated SQL.I've not found it yet. It always tries to create the in clause and when it hits 100 fails. The only thing I've been able to get to work is to limit the dimension to level 0 members or level 1 if I know none of them has more than 100 children
Thank you for responding. I posed the same question to Oracle support and here is what they had to say.
"" Essbase studio don't have limitation,But it might be caused by the sql limitation as for recursive hierarchy, all members under the specified level will be included in "in" clause. It is impossible that there's no limitation imposed by sql. So, the 1000 member limitation might be from there. ""
Here is the post wherein timtow mentions about Oracle limit - Issue with Drill Through Reports in Essbase Studio.
I'm getting confused now as to which product has the limit and how to overcome it.
Below is the alternate method I mentioned in my original post although I haven't implemented it..
In your response, I'm assuming you are talking about 1000 members and not 100.