Drill Across Essbase/Multidimensional cubes with a conformed dimension

Hi Guys,
Does anyone have any ideas/pointers on how to implement drill across on Essbase cubes or Multidimensional sources in general.
For Eg:
Cube 1 with aggregate data at Country Level
Cube 2 with detail data at City Level
Geography is the conformed dimension here.
I need to implement drill across from the Country level in the Geography Hierarchy to go to the City level, across cubes. Facing a problem desinging it in the BMM.
Any help would be appreciated.
thanks,
jboy

We're discussing this already in your other thread? Different drill paths for a common Essbase Dimension with varied depth
Close this one please...not necessary.
Cheers,
C.

Similar Messages

EPMA Essbase BSO cube with text measures

Hi everybody ,
I am using Oracle EPM 11.1.2.2
I am trying to deploy a essbase BSO cube with text measures from EPMA. In EPMA the text list has to be created as a smartlist dimension. I have even kept the Account member with data type as Text as the first level 0 member of the Account hierarchy.
When I am deploying am gettting no error . In EAS when I see the property of the member it shows as Text and also with the text list attached to it . But When I load data , the data also gets loaded and gives no error.
But when am viewing the data through Smart View or through HFR , the data is displayed as numbers and not as text.
Kindly help .
regards,
SS

I can see that it is working with EPMA Essbase too, (nothing wrong there, with EPMA)
Is there any member with a member formula, where you are getting numbers.
If that is the case then text list will not work there. I remember raising a bug for this when text list was introduced for the first time. If that is the case, then you might have to wait till next release (11.1.2.3) where I heard for the first time solve order is coming to BSO (I could be wrong here.)
Regards
Celvin
http://www.orahyplabs.com
Please mark answers as helpful/correct if applicable

How to tune performance of a cube with multiple date dimension?

Hi,
I have a cube where I have a measure. Now for a turn time report I am taking the date difference of two dates and taking the average, max and min of the date difference. The graph is taking long time to load. I am using Telerik report controls.
Is there any way to tune up the cube performance with multiple date dimension to it? What are the key rules and beset practices for a cube to perform well?
Thanks,
Amit

Hi amit2015,
According to your description, you want to improve the performance of a SSAS cube with multiple date dimension. Right?
In Analysis Services, there are many tips to improve the performance of a cube. In this scenario, I suggest you only keep one dimension, and only include the column which are required for your calculation. Please refer to "dimension design" in
the link below:
http://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/2567/ssas--best-practices-and-performance-optimization--part-3-of-4/
If you have any question, please feel free to ask.
Simon Hou
TechNet Community Support

Multiple facts with non-conforming dimensions

Hi, I have a question re: using multiple facts in a report, where one of the facts has a non-conforming dimension.
I have two metrics: "PAYROLL" and "UNRECONCILED DIFFS". The payroll metric is at the employee level, but the "UNRECONCILED DIFFS" is not. Here's what I've done so far:
1. Set up a single logical fact table in the business layer
2. Created 2 LTSs. One has "employee" level, one has "all employees" (i.e. the grand total level)
3. Created metrics for PAYROLL and UNRECONCILED DIFFS, each pointed to the proper LTS
4. Set the "employee" hierarchy level for "UNRECONCILED DIFFS" to the "all employees" level
This is working...kind of. If I have three employees with a payroll amount of $1000, and there is a $500 unreconciled diff, the report shows up like:
Employee Payroll UnrecDiff
Emp1 $1000 $500
Emp2 $1000 $500
Emp3 $1000 $500
Total $3000 $500
Here's what I'm wondering...instead of having the unreconciled difference repeated for each employee...is there any way it can just be $0 or (even better) NULL, but then still show up as $500 in the total line?
Thanks!
Scott

Hi
The problem you describe is similar to mine (I wrote several threads ago).
That is, if there is a non-conformed dimension in a report then the column from the fact table which is not connected with those non-conformed dimensions containes zeros or blanks.
Was this problem solved? I didn't quite catch one of previuos messages... If you can please repeat it more detailed.
What I tried to do is to set Total level in the Content tab (LTS properties). In this example - I could set Total level to JOBS in the plan type dimension. But it didn't help.
So if you know what to do then please describe it here...

Modelling 2 Fact Tables with Non-Conforming Dimension in OBIEE 11g

Hi all,
I have two fact tables (Fact 1 and Fact 2) and two dimension tables (Product and Rule). The Product dimension table is a conforming dimension and is used in both fact tables, but the Rule dimension is a non-conforming dimension which is used only one fact table. I'm using OBIEE 11g (11.1.1.6.0).
====
Fact 1
====
Sales ID | Product ID | Quantity | Sales Description | Sales Status
S001 | P001 | 100 | bla bla bla bla bla | N
S001 | P002 | 200 | bla bla bla bla bla | N
S002 | P001 | 200 | lab lab lab lab lab | Y
S002 | P003 | 250 | lab lab lab lab lab | Y
Notes for Fact 1:
- One Sales ID can have multiple Product IDs
- Sales Description and Sales Status are the same for one Sales ID (repeating Sales Description and Sales Status for the same Sales ID)
====
Fact 2
====
Sales ID | Product ID | Rule ID | Score
S001 | P001 | R001 | 2
S001 | P001 | R002 | 3
S001 | P002 | R003 | 1
S002 | P001 | R003 | 1
S002 | P003 | R002 | 2
S002 | P003 | R004 | 5
Notes for Fact 2:
- One combination of Sales ID and Product ID can have multiple Rule ID
I'm wondering how best to model these tables so that I can create this report (number of the dimension and fact tables created in the business model, level mapping, aggregation rule, etc)? Any suggestion/advice on how to achieve this?
Sales ID | Product ID | Quantity | Sales Description | Sales Status | Rule ID | Score
S001 | P001 | 100 | bla bla bla bla bla | N | R001 | 2
S001 | P001 | 100 | bla bla bla bla bla | N | R002 | 3
S001 | P002 | 200 | bla bla bla bla bla | N | R003 | 1
S002 | P001 | 200 | lab lab lab lab lab | Y | R003 | 1
S002 | P003 | 250 | lab lab lab lab lab | Y | R002 | 2
S002 | P003 | 250 | lab lab lab lab lab | Y | R004 | 5
Thank you very much!

Hi Dhar, thanks for the suggestions.
I tested what you suggested, but the result is not as per my expectation mentioned above. Here's what I did:
1. In physical layer:
- I joined Fact 1 table with Product dimension table only
- I joined Fact 2 table with Product and Rule dimension tables
2. In business model layer:
- I created 3 logical tables: Fact, Product, and Rule
- The Product table contains the Product ID and Product Name from the Product dimension table in the physical layer
- I created the hierarchy (logical dimension) for Product with only ProductTotal level (as the grand total level) and ProductDetail level that contains Product ID and Product Name
- The Rule table contains the Rule ID and Rule Name from the Rule dimension table in the physical layer
- I created the hierarchy (logical dimension) for Rule with only RuleTotal level (as the grand total level) and RuleDetail level that contains Rule ID and Rule Name
- The Fact table contains 2 logical tables sources: Fact 1 (which logical level in the Content tab is mapped to ProductDetail and RuleTotal) and Fact 2 (which logical level in the Content tab is mapped to ProductDetail and RuleDetail)
- The Fact table contains Sales ID logical column (mapped to both Fact 1 and Fact 2 logical table sources)
- The Fact table also contains Sales Description and Sales Status logical columns (mapped to only Fact 1), which aggregation rule is the default to None
- The Fact table also contains Quantity logical column (mapped to only Fact 1), which aggregation rule is set to Sum
- The Fact table also contains Score logical column (mapped to only Fact 2), which aggregation rule is set to Sum
OBIEE returns the expected result when I retrieve the report:
Sales ID | Product ID | Quantity | Sales Description | Sales Status
However, OBIEE returns an error when I retrieve the reports:
Sales ID | Product ID | Quantity | Sales Description | Sales Status | Rule ID
or
Sales ID | Product ID | Quantity | Sales Description | Sales Status | Rule ID | Score
The error is:
Error Codes: OPR4ONWY:U9IM8TAC:OI2DL65P
State: HY000. Code: 10058. [NQODBC] [SQL_STATE: HY000] [nQSError: 10058] A general error has occurred. [nQSError: 43113] Message returned from OBIS. [nQSError: 43119] Query Failed: [nQSError: 14020] None of the fact tables are compatible with the query request FACT.SALES_STATUS. (HY000)
And the Score column is blank when I retrieved this report:
Sales ID | Product ID | Quantity | Sales Description | Sales Status | Score
Any suggestion anyone? Please help. Thanks a lot!
Edited by: stewartlife on Nov 29, 2012 4:01 PM

Single Fact with Multiple Conformed Dimensions

Hi,
I have a fairly simple report:
Dim A and Dim B are joined with Fact 1
Now, I want all rows from Dim A and Dim B along with Fact 1 values. If there are no matching values of Dim A and Dim B in Fact 1, I should get NULL or some message "No Data Available".
If I make left outer join from Dim A to Fact 1 and Dim B to Fact 1 (to consider all rows from dimension tables), I dont get matching records. Because Fact 1 may not have all records for Dim A or Dim B.
I dont want to make Full outer joins between Dim A and Fact 1 and DIme B and Fact 2. Do I have any other solution?

Hi,
ok let's assume,
I have something like voucher used flag in one fact table, this is not a measure, it's a degenerated dimension entry.
What to do with this one? My model is at the moment clear, we have managed to have 15 facts and 10 conformed dimensions, without issues.
Now they want to analyze over this flag "voucher used" in best case over all facts and dimension combinations.
This is the main requirement
regards,

Querying against two fact tables with non conformed dimension

I have two fact tables and I have this set up in RPD :
Fact1 joined to DimA and DimB
Fact2 joined to DimA
On Front end I build two analysis:
Analysis 1:
DimA.A, Fact1.1, Fact2.2
Analysis 2 :
DimA.A, DimB.B, Fact1.1, Fact2.2
In the results of Analysis 1 , I am seeing correct values for Fact2.2
In the results of Analysis 2, I am seeing Fact2.2 as empty column. I think the reason is that Fact2 is not joined to DIMB.
Is it possible that I should be able to report against both dimension tables (DIMA and DIMB) columns for FACT1 and FACT2 measures.... Even though I don't have join between DIMB and FACT2.
Any response would be helpful!!!
Regards,
Annu

Hi,
Go to the LTS-- Content Level of the fact which does not have join with Dimension and put Total level for that Dimension and total level on Column(Measure also)(Double click --Levels)(Assume Dim Hierarchy is already set up)
Pull everything(D1,D2,F1,F2) You will see results.
Update Me
Thanks
NK
Edited by: DNK on Mar 20, 2013 1:35 PM

Two facts with conformed dimension

Starting new thread per Alistair's request :)
I have two facts
Class Enrollment (who is enrolled in which classes)
External Test Scores (who got what score on what exam)
The only dimension they have in common is "Person".
Is it possible to build a presentation layer that includes both facts, the Person dimension, and dimensions that related to one fact but not the other (e.g. dimension "External Test Type" or dimension "Course")?
How would I set up the BI metadata to answer the question:
What was the average grade for Course ABC for students who scored above a 50 on test XYZ?
So far, for External Test Scores fact, I have created hierarchies(/dimensions) for any related dimension tables that didn't already have hierarchies defined. I then went to the Content tab for External Test Scores and set aggregation levels (lowest level for everything related to the fact, "total" level for everything NOT related to the fact).
I put both facts and the "Person" dimension into a presentation folder. I can query test scores ok, but when I add in a simple "Row Count" column from class enrollment, I get no data back.
Do I now go back and do the same Content tab settings for the Class Enrollment fact? My initial attempts at this yielded consistency check warnings of "Logical table source does not join to any fact source".
Huge thanks for suggestions.
-John

Hi John,
I tend to harp on a lot about the need for a hierachy on every logical dim, even just total -> detail. It allows this (non-conformed) approach for starters, also allows another developer to quickly ascertain the relationship between objects.
About the complex joins, I meant do as you will have done for a normal star with just the conformed dims, so thats Foreign keys where applicable in the Phyiscal layer, and Complex joins where applicable in the BMM layer. I just wanted to make a point that you should do this as per a normal normal star schema with fully conformed dimensions, and merely that the none-conformed dimension will only be connected to its relevant fact table - probably didnt need to say it as it may be more confusing!
Your correct with aggregation rules, ideally all objects in a logical fact should have an aggregation rule - otherwise it should be in a logical dimension.
As to the approach, this is the way i've always handled non-conformed dimensions when the requirement is to see both facts on the same report. Our Peak Indicators OBIEE training material on this subject is as follows :
"order" fact table, dimensioned by Date, Customer, Product.
"inventory" fact table dimensioned by Product only.
Report requirement - Show me all orders where the order_qty (order fact) is greater than the total qty in stock (inventory fact)
So like your example, we sum up both qty's and use a where clause to filter only rows where one fact measure is greater than another measure.
Whats the ideal approach ??
If you had control of the ETL perhaps you could seed an 'unknown' record in the non-conforming dimensions, and then reference this on the other fact table, but I'd say the majority of the time, the customer who wants everything by everything in their subject area needs a little education, its really not good for end users having 10's of folders with 10's of columns - we should be creating analysis subject areas to enable the answering of business questions, theres no reason why we cant combine reports from different subject areas on one dashboard page, all using a common set of prompts, but there really isnt a need to give an end user the whole BMM / DW etc in one go.......unless they are paying of course, and after you've tried to educate them they want it there way :-)

Cubes with different dimensions based on the same fact table

I have a fact table (f_a) with three dimensions (dim_a, dim_b, dim_c) and a one measure (m_a).
Is it possible to create cube with only one dimension (dim_a)?
Data for other two dimensions (dim_b, dim_c) should be aggreagated together.
Of course i can create second fact table with only one dimension, and then creating that cube would be no problem.
But is it possible doing this directly from the primary fact table (without creating second fact table)?
Raf
PS:i use AWM 9.2 to create target cubes. Source cubes i create with OEM 9.2

At the beginning i was confused by the numberous kind of cubes...
for example when i created cube in MS i just designed cube, picked fact table, and that's all. In Oracle firstly i create project of cube (first cube) in OWB. Then i export it to the OLAP Catalog (second cube). That cube in OLAP catalog is a source cube for the AW cube (third cube). Then i need to enable AW cube for OLAPI by creating another cube in OLAP Catalog (i use 9iR2, so OLAPI doesn't have direct access to AW cubes).
I spent much time until i could see my first sample cube in Discoverer or Excel as a final user should see it. :-)
Now i'm facing another problem - when you redesign cube (for example add another dimension), you can't just "refresh" it as it was in MS. You have to delete old cube and create new one. And deleting cube isn't so simple (i'm not sure which elements i should delete).
For testing and learning purposes i just create every cube in seperate AW. deleting whole AW is much simplier that deleting one cube.
Raf

ASO Cube with attributes very slow in retrieval

Hi,
I have a ASO Cube with 5 base dimensions and 8-9 attributes on the entity dimension. I have only 5-6 measures, which do the averages and counts based on the 40 day period. Howere, the data is loaded at the 15 minute increment
Entity
Date - (date-time, lowest level being date)
TIme - ( 15 minute time for the full 24 hour period, has a attribute assocuated with oit)
LocationType
Measures.
The sample formula is
IIF(Islevel([Locations].CurrentMember,0), Avg(CrossJoin({[Measure].[Sale]},{[DateDim].CurrentMember.lag(40):[DateDim].CurrentMember})),Missing)
Is there a way, i can have this calculated as a part of the script? DO you suggest i create a BSO, to do these calculations and pass on the result.
In OBIEE, the report is to display the followung based on the date input.
Entity Gen7, Entity Gen 6..... Entity Gen 2, Attr1, Attr2, Attr3, Attr4, Attr5, Attr6, Attr7, Measures

2 things I would look at
1st - I don't know how much performance you would get out of this, but I'm not clear why you are using a crossjoin in your MDX, it seems unnecessary and may cause more overhead. The following should work, you could also try using IsLeaf instead and see if that is any faster
IIF(Isleaf([Locations].CurrentMember),
Avg({[DateDim].CurrentMember.lag(40):[DateDim].CurrentMember},
[Measure].[Sale], INCLUDEEMPTY)
2nd - your problem mostly revolves around the fact that you are running a 40 member sum/avg for every member you are querying. It also sounds like the average is at the Day level, which is not level 0. So for all forty days, ASO also has to calc the results of each of those days. Remember that aggregations only get you so far, you should really think of everything in ASO as dynamic and that is why you can see what you have set up is not going to work that well, it is too calc intensive.
I don't know how practical this is, but to get this to work fast you would probably need to break out the 15 minute increments below the day level to another dimension so the day level becomes a stored level zero member. The 15 minute increment dimension should also be stored. If at all possible you would want to have an alternate stored hierarchy with the 40 days you want to base the average on. Enable alternate hierarchies in your aggregations, then change your MDX calc to be based on the parent of the 40 day hierarchy divided by 40. That would be fast.
I suppose you could opt to not break out the 15 minute increments and just have the shared hierarchy made up of the 15 minute increments that are below the 40 days. That would still give you a good stored subtotal that with some query hints you could get optimized.

Filter and non-conforming dimensions

I have a model design which includes three fact tables with non-conforming dimensions. This causes BI to create multiple queries for a report and finally bring the results together using a full outer join at the end. When I attempt to filter on a field from one of the non-conforming dimensions, that filter is not applied at the full outer join step but during an earlier step related to the chosen filter field. This results in more data returning then desired. I need to move the filter to the full outer join step. Here are two sub-optimal methods that I have found to work around the issue.
1. Build the logical query in answers. Then, wrap that query with an outer query and apply the filter to the outer query.
2. Build a minus query in answers that removes the records you don't want to see.
I have seen this issue discussed in other threads, but I haven't found a good solution. Does anyone have any recommendations?
Thank you,
Edited by: user10715047 on May 21, 2010 7:13 AM
Here is a decent description of the problem
http://siebel.ittoolbox.com/groups/technical-functional/siebel-analytics-l/two-fact-tables-and-nonconforming-dimensions-3297052
and this is a better solution than the two I stated above. However, even this solution is not going to be very intuitive for the users
http://siebel.ittoolbox.com/groups/technical-functional/siebel-analytics-l/two-fact-tables-and-nonconforming-dimensions-3298529

i know this is a bit old thread but thought it might be helpful to someone who came across the same issue...
when using Degener@teDimen$ion ( this is !nner joned to FACT tables in BMM) and if any of the dimensions {other than theDegener@teDimen$ion (Let us say Dim X) } have an ()uter join to any of the fact tables, and you were doing your analysis using Degener@teDimen$ion, Dim X, Measure value you will face the following issues.
when filtering the analysis on the ()uter join dimension ( Dim X), the IN filter will not work. Reason is that the filter is getting applied to both the Dimension and FACT tables and the values that exist in Dimension Dim X but not in FACT table wont show up.
The above issue can be fixed by changing the join between the fact and Degener@teDimen$ion from inner to outer.
Please mark if you found this helpful.

Obiee 11g non-conforming dimensions and nQSError 14025

Does anyone know how to configure the 11g repository for non-conforming dimensions? This worked fine in 10g. I have upgraded the repository to 11g and it doesn't work anymore. I am receiving the error [nQSError: 14025] No fact table exists at the requested level of detail. I have tried building a simple test subject area and testing different configurations, but I have not had any success.
Edited by: user10715047 on Jan 27, 2011 12:33 PM

Ah, I love answering my own questions. :/
The only way I could make this work was a follows...
1. Make sure you have a level-based dimension for each of your logical table dimensions (both conforming and non-conforming).
2. For the fact table measures, set the levels as you did in 10g with the non-conforming dimensions at the Grand Total logical level for each measure.
3. For the fact table LTSs, set the logical level in the Content tab to the dimension's lowest level for each conforming dimension (leave the non-conforming dimensions level blank).
Unfortunately, the query generated in 11g will add an additional sub-query to the mix even though it doesn't appear to have any benefit. Therefore in 10g, if you have two logical fact tables with non-conforming dimensions, three sub-queries were required to create the result set. Two queries for the facts and their related dimensions and a final full outer join to stitch the results together. In 11g, you have one query without the measures, two queries with the measures, and the final outer join.
I am talking to Oracle support about this issue, but I haven't made much progress yet. I asked development to confirm my repository design and they say it checks out. They indicated that the additional query is a design change/enhancement. I am not getting a warm and fuzzy on this one. I'll post back if I make any progress.
Oh, did I mention that this change has broken queries where I attempt to combine fields from two non-conforming dimensions?!? This worked fine in 10g.

Optimizing order by query with multiple time dimensions

Hello all,
I have two time dimensions, one a standard date dimension (Year,Qtr, Month, Week, Day) the other a user defined Time dimension (All, Hour, Minute, Second).
I am joining my cube with my time dimension using only the 'All' level, so that I can get a single record for the Day level in my Date dimension. Under these circumanstances there aren't many records in my sample data. Less than 100 dates, although at the lowest level(seconds) there are approx 2 million records.
In order to get my results back in order I am ordering by the date dimension day_end_date. The query is taking longer than I would expect given that there aren't many records at the Day Level. How can I ensure that my query is ordering based only on the values in the current day_level and not all day_end_dates values in the underlying cube.

Changed order, speed improved significantly.

Error formula SUMCT with drill across.

Hello everyone,
I have a problem with the formula SUMCT.
A formula has been defined applying the SUMCT operator to the 0???? index 0DEB_CRE_LC.
The 0COSTELMNT characteristic is on the query rows, and a hierarchy is active on the
cost element.
When the query is executed, the result of the SUMCT operator is correctely calculated.
However, if an additional characteristic (0BUS_AREA) is drilled across, the result of SUMCT
is 0 for some hierarchy nodes.
Nevertheless, the result is correct for all hierarchy nodes when the same characteristic is drilled down.

The documentation about the [percentage functions|http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw70/helpdata/en/e2/16f13a2f160f28e10000000a114084/frameset.htm] (which is referred by the SUMCT documentation) explains that:
If a characteristic has been drilled down in both the rows and the columns, this reference is not unique. The system displays a warning and the relevant symbol for Data Does Not Exist.
[SAP Note 164352 - Norming, Normalization / Output in percent (SUMCT, %CT)|https://service.sap.com/sap/support/notes/164352] points out that:
When you use Function 'NORMING' / 'characteristic' -> 'Normalize to' -> 'Result' / 'Calculate single value as - norming...' a warning may be displayed: "Could not carry out all normings". The same message may occur when the formula operators %CT, %GT, %RT, SUMCT, SUMGT or SUMRT are used.
Norming to 'Result' is not unique in lists which are expanded twice (both horizontally and vertically) since you could do the norming for both the column totals and the line totals.
It is possible to determine the direction in which the system calculates ('calculate along the rows axis or the columns axis') for normalization or cumulation (definable in the properties of a structure element).
However, for SUMCT operations in Business Warehouse 3.X releases, there is no alternative. Changes are planned for the upcoming BW release.
Though the suggestion works for the normalization issue, it doesn't solve the SUMCT problem, even when working with BI 7.0.
Has anyone some info about this point? Are the promised changes to be released soon?
Cheers, [Davide|https://wiki.sdn.sap.com/wiki/display/profile/Davide+Cavallari]
Edited by: Davide Cavallari on Mar 3, 2008 2:52 PM

Accessing Analysis Services MultiDimensional cube data with Power View in Excel

At this point in time, does Power View in Excel have the ability to connect directly to an Analysis Services multidimensional cube?
If not, is this functionality expected in the near future?
davidg12

Hi,
As far as I known, the Power View for Excel does not support the feature yet, please see this article:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj969574.aspx
I copied part of the article here:
Native support for Power View
With this release, multidimensional models support analysis and visualization by using Power View in SharePoint mode. No special configuration of your multidimensional models is necessary. There are however some differences in how multidimensional model
objects are displayed in Power View compared to other client tools such as Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Performance Point.
This release does not support analysis and visualization of multidimensional models by using Power View in Excel 2013.
====
We may use Power View for SQL Server 2014. For more detail information, please refer to the following link:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/user_ed/archive/2014/01/02/business-intelligence-in-sql-server-2014-power-view-for-multidimensional-models.aspx
Hope it's helpful.
Regards,
George Zhao
Forum Support
Come back and mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help.
If you have any feedback on our support, please click "[email protected]"

Drill Across Essbase/Multidimensional cubes with a conformed dimension

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for