Do you see anything wrong with this GL mapping in a cube?

Question

hi,
Can you verify if something is wring with this mapping:
In model 1:
0fi_gl_4 --> 0figl_O02 --> 0figl_C02
the standard cube shows the following key figures and I mapped them to the following fields from the datasource:
DMSOL(in datasource) to 0Debit_LC (in DSO) to 0Debit (in cube)
DMHAB(in datasource) to 0Credit_LC (in DSO) to 0Credit (in cube)
In model 2:
0fi_gl_6 --> 0figl_C01
the standard cube shows the following key figures and I mapped them to the following fields from the datasource:
UMSOL(in datasource) to 0Debit (in cube)
UMHAB(in datasource) to 0Credit (in cube)
1. Do you see anything wrong with this mapping? And what is the solution?
2. What is the problem with the mapping if both cubes sit under the same multiprovider, since 0debit and 0credit are from differnt souce fields?
thnx

Answer 1

Hi,
Thanks for the explanation.
on #1,
if my goal is to provide a sort of trial balance, credits and debits as two columns, will it be ok to assume that it should be Local Currency or could it be Document Currency, Local Currency 2 or Local Currency 3? If the latter, then how do I decide?
on #2,
i. why will there be difficulty creating a union between the two?
ii. will there also be an inconsistency if I created 2 separate multiproviders for each model, and create a jump query from the 0fi gl_6 model to 0fi gl_c4 model. If not, why not in this case?
iii. So, is there any advantage in placing a multiprovider on each of these models separately? i.e. instead of directly reporting off the cubes separately?
3. I am wondering why in the case of gl_6 (the totals) help.sap recomended to go directly from the datasource to the cube i.e. without DSO in between.
If without the DSO step is an advantage, what are the advantages?
And why then do we use DSOs in most model instead? I will appreciate any reasons you may think of..
Thnx.
Edited by: AmandaBaah on Jul 28, 2009 11:07 AM
Edited by: AmandaBaah on Jul 29, 2009 2:25 AM