Issue facing due to Non Common Dimension in OBIEE 10g

Hi All,
There are 2 facts F1 and F2 and 3 dimensions D1, D2 and D3
Here is the design
D1---->F1<-----D3------>F2<------D2
D3 is a common dimension to both the facts F1 and F2.
D1 and D2 are only joined to F1 and F2 respectively.
When i select the columns from D3,F1, F2 --- request is working fine
when i select columns from all the tables D1 F1 D3 F2 and D2 ----- request is erroring with "Unable to Navigate Requested Expression" error.
All the levels in the Content tab of the fact tables are correctly setted up.
F1----D1 Detail and D3 Detail
F2----D2 Detail and D3 Detail
Can any one please help us in solving this issue.
Thanks,

Try F1 D2 total and F2 D1 total. This is in addition to what you already set details. Try if this works.

Similar Messages

  • Two FACT Tables, Some Common and Non-Common Dimensions

    Hello all, a question i am sure you have faced in the past but still wanted to get your feedback.
    I have a few FACT tables and some dimensions that are shared (common dimensions). Rest of the dimensions are related to one or the other FACT tables.
    What is the best way to present a view where users can pull information from both the FACT tables?
    I am successful in pulling the shared (common) dimensions across BOTH FACT tables having the same grain but this view breaks down when i pull information from one Dimension that has not much to do with the other FACT.
    What is the best way to present this? Should this be broken in three subject areas?
    Subject Area 1 --> Some Dims --> FACT Table A
    Subject Area 2 --> Some Dims --> FACT Table B
    AND
    Subject Area 3 --> ***Only Common Dims*** --> FACT Table A & FACT Table B?
    Your feedback is always appreciated.
    Regards,
    Edited by: user10679130 on Oct 12, 2009 3:27 PM

    Please check the forum first for similar threads/questions.
    Joining two fact tables with different dimensions into single logical table
    http://108obiee.blogspot.com/2009/08/joining-two-fact-tables-with-different.html
    This solution keeps both fact tables in the same subject area in the single logical fact table, with common and not-common dimensions.
    Regards
    Goran
    http://108obiee.blogspot.com

  • 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

  • Non-conforming dimension filters

    Hi,
    Here how my join looks
    FACT1>>product(dim)<< FACT2>>ledger(dim)>>RPT(dim)
    Here RPT(dim) is non conforming dimension for FACT1 and product(dim) is common for both FACT1 and FACT2
    I have set content level(LTS) only for conformed dim.( to detail)
    When i drag fact1 and RPT(dim) ,my result is fine
    but when i drag only FACT1 and use (USING filter) of RPT(dim) columns
    i get error No fact table exists at the requested level of detail: [,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,].
    FYI: Re: obiee 11g non-conforming dimension filters
    can i know how to set content level for nON conformed dim? will tht solve problem
    Regards
    Sabeer
    Edited by: 944346 on Sep 20, 2012 12:54 AM
    Edited by: 944346 on Sep 20, 2012 12:55 AM
    Edited by: 944346 on Sep 20, 2012 12:56 AM

    I resolved this issue a while ago, but I hadn't posted back the results. Here is what happened...
    I talked to Oracle support about my design and issues. They created a patch for me that would re-enable the 10g functionality so that my model/queries would work again. From their perspective, 10g's non-conforming code design was flawed and 11g was fixed to correct the flaw. This flaw was what allowed my model and queries to work in 10g.
    NOTE: I have not tested the patch (bug# 11850704)
    The only way to get things working on 11g without the patch is to find a common fact that all dimensions can join. After some consideration and testing, I decided that it would be possible to join all the dimensions to one fact with some backend design changes. I could have proceeded with the patch, but I doubt that the 10g functionality will be maintained in the coming releases. Therefore, I would only be delaying the inevitable redesign.
    I have to admit that the final results have been positive and I have eliminated many of the 10g issues that I had with the design.

  • Multiple facts with shared/non shared dimensions

    Hello All,
    I have a scenario where we are using multiple facts in OBIEE. Fact1(Inventory Onhand) is joined to all shared dimensions, and Fact2( Forecasting Values) is joined to few shared dimesnions so the joins are like:
    Fact1 with Dim1, Dim2, Dim3, Dim4, Dim5, Dim6..
    Fact2 with Dim1,Dim3, Dim5
    I have given the physical joins in the physical layer, later in the logical layer I pulled the fact2 in to to the fact1(multiple LTS) and then set the aggregattion levels for the non conformed dimensions. This was working fine for me but the customer was not happy with this. He doesnt want to have different levels of data in to a single fact.
    What are the allternate possible solutions to implement this in the busines layer?
    Any ideas/inputs are highly appreciated.
    - Abhi

    Hi,
    I have done the same as explained above. But here the issue is we are getting duplicate data.
    For Ex: if i have one common dimmension attribute and two non confirmed dimension attributes with a measure. For non confirmed dimension have different value and for all these values the common dimension attribute is same. Then the common attribute will repeat for all non confirmed dimensions.so, here automatically the Corresponding measures also repeating.
    Common Attr non-Confirm Attr1 non-Cnfirm Attr2 measure
    123 abc xyz 1000
    123 bac yzx 1000
    123 pqr mno 1000
    If you observe the above exapmple the confirm dime attr is same for both non confirm dime attrs, so the measure values also repeating here. If i see the data base i have measure data only for ABC record. For Remaining two records it is 0, but here the value 1000 is showing for remaining two records as well.
    Please let me know if any one face this issue earlier.
    Regards,
    Aari

  • Obiee 11g non-conforming dimension filters

    I have a non-conforming design configured in 11g that is functional. However, I have run into an issue where if I attempt to filter on columns from two non-conforming dimensions, I receive the following error.
    [nQSError: 14023] None of the fact sources for logicalTable1.logicalColumn1 are compatible with the detail filter [].
    I have not been able to resolve the issue, but I believe it is related to the design changes in 11g to configure non-conforming dimensions (I have documented the design changes in another thread). Oracle support has confimed my design, but I still have the filter issue. If I only filter on one column as opposed to two, the query executes without issues. Has anyone managed to resolve this issue?

    I resolved this issue a while ago, but I hadn't posted back the results. Here is what happened...
    I talked to Oracle support about my design and issues. They created a patch for me that would re-enable the 10g functionality so that my model/queries would work again. From their perspective, 10g's non-conforming code design was flawed and 11g was fixed to correct the flaw. This flaw was what allowed my model and queries to work in 10g.
    NOTE: I have not tested the patch (bug# 11850704)
    The only way to get things working on 11g without the patch is to find a common fact that all dimensions can join. After some consideration and testing, I decided that it would be possible to join all the dimensions to one fact with some backend design changes. I could have proceeded with the patch, but I doubt that the 10g functionality will be maintained in the coming releases. Therefore, I would only be delaying the inevitable redesign.
    I have to admit that the final results have been positive and I have eliminated many of the 10g issues that I had with the design.

  • App rejected due to non-public api's

    Hi,
              My App rejected due to non-public api's.
    Apple's Comments: 
    2.5: Apps that use non-public
                                      "We found that your app uses one or more non-public APIs, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines. The use of non-public APIs is not permissible because it can lead to a poor user experience should these APIs change.
    We found the following non-public API/s in your app:
    _updateView (I have the method name like "_updateView" in my source, can I change the name of the method. Is it works ? )
    If you have defined methods in your source code with the same names as the above-mentioned APIs, we suggest altering your method names so that they no longer collide with Apple's private APIs to avoid your application being flagged in future submissions.
    Additionally, one or more of the above-mentioned APIs may reside in a static library included with your application. If you do not have access to the library's source, you may be able to search the compiled binary using "strings" or "otool" command line tools. The "strings" tool can output a list of the methods that the library calls and "otool -ov" will output the Objective-C class structures and their defined methods. These techniques can help you narrow down where the problematic code resides."
                                    And in my application, I am using the FBConnect, SDWebImage library,  and Twitter+oAuth api's. These are non-public api's ? Now, can I integrate Jira (Crash Reporter) to my application? Can anybody solve my issue......
    Thanks & Regards,
    Rajesh Kumar Yandamuri

    I have the same problem what to do with below points from the apple.
    Requires help plz help me my app rejected two times with this points.
    We found that your app uses one or more non-public APIs, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines. The use of non-public APIs is not permissible because it can lead to a poor user experience should these APIs change.
    We found the following non-public API/s in your app:
    _tearDown
    If you have defined methods in your source code with the same names as the above-mentioned APIs, we suggest altering your method names so that they no longer collide with Apple's private APIs to avoid your application being flagged in future submissions.
    Additionally, one or more of the above-mentioned APIs may reside in a static library included with your application. If you do not have access to the library's source, you may be able to search the compiled binary using "strings" or "otool" command line tools. The "strings" tool can output a list of the methods that the library calls and "otool -ov" will output the Objective-C class structures and their defined methods. These techniques can help you narrow down where the problematic code resides.
    We appreciate that you may have made the precautions in your code for using non-public APIs, however, there is no way to accurately or completely predict how an API may be modified and what effects those modifications may have. For this reason, we do not permit the use of non-public APIs in App Store apps.
    If there are no alternatives for providing the functionality your app requires, we encourage you to file an enhancement request. Or, try working with the Apple Developer Technical Support team to explore alternative solutions. 
    On occasion, there may be apps on the App Store that don't appear to be in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines. We work hard to ensure that the apps on the App Store are in compliance and we try to identify any apps currently on the App Store that may not be. It takes time to identify these occurrences but another app being out of compliance is not a reason for your app to be.
    For discrete code-level questions, you may wish to consult with Apple Developer Technical Support. Please be sure to:
    - include the complete details of your rejection issues
    - prepare any symbolicated crash logs, screenshots, and steps to reproduce the issues for when the DTS engineer follows up.
    For information on how to symbolicate and read a crash log, please see Tech Note TN2151 Understanding and Analyzing iPhone OS Application Crash Reports.
    If you have difficulty reproducing this issue, please try testing the workflow as described in  <https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/qa/qa1764/>Testing Workflow with Xcode's Archive feature".

  • OBIEE 11g: Non conformed dimension filter

    Hi,
    I have two fact tables and some confromed and non conformed dimensions between the fact tabels.
    The hiearchies being built and proper levels were set for the fact tables. The measures of the fact were set to the total level of the non confromed dimension tables.
    The fact also hold some non aggregated columns (baseline columns), all the base line columns where moved to a logical dim table.
    The report involves both the fact tables, conformed and non conformed dimension columns.
    When we built the report with all these columns the report is showing fine. But when we add the filter with the non conformed dimension the report is throwing some error.
    Error Details
    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: 14023] None of the fact sources for D01 Date.Date are compatible with the detail filter [D05 Non Confrm Dimension.Code = 'AFS']. (HY000)
    The above functionality was working fine with OBIEE 10g and have implemented it many times before.
    There is one patch available for this issue but it is available only for windows 32 bit enironment.
    Patch details
    Patch 14210864: OBIEE 11G: CONFORMING DIMENSION SETTINGS FROM 10G NOT WORKING IN 11G
    Can anyone give some suggestion or workaround? I can't do any change in Datamodel.
    Thanks,
    Vino

    Hi Vinod,
    In OBIEE 10g, we are running into similar error when we add filter from non conformed dimensions in a report, so can you please share patch download details like where to download or if we have to raise a SR for the Patch 14210864.
    Thanks in Advance!!

  • 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.

  • Non-conformed dimension [nQSError: 14020]

    Hi,
    I have linked two cubes in a report, which have some conformed and some non-conformed dimensions. I have set the LTS of the non-conformed dimensions to the total level.
    This creates a warning in Administrator when doing the Global Consistency check:
    *[39054] Fact table "ORACLE_BUSINESS_INTELLIGENCE_1"."CubeXXX" is not joined to logical dimension table "ORACLE_BUSINESS_INTELLIGENCE_1"."DIM_XXX". This will cause problems when extracting project(s).*
    What does 'extracting projects' mean here ???
    And when I run a report on the two fact tables I get an error in the logs
    *...converted to NULL because [nQSError: 14020] None of the fact tables are compatible with the query request*
    Am I missing something or is this related to the rumor that non-conformed dimensions are broken in 11.1.1.3 ?
    Regards,
    Knut

    Below is some useful and related information from oracle about OBIEE 11g warnings during consistency check:
    Warning: [39055] Fact table "HR"."FACT - HC Budget" is not joined to tables in logical dimension "HR"."DIM - HR EmployeeDim". This will cause problems when extracting project(s).
    Description: Even though this fact logical table source has an aggregate grain set in this dimension, no valid physical join was found that connects to any logical table source in this dimension.
    This means that either no join exists at all, or it does exist but is invalid because it connects a higher-level fact source to a lower-level dimensional source. Such joins are invalid and ignored by the Oracle BI Server because, if followed, they would lead to double counting in query answers.
    For example, consider Select year, yearlySales. Even if a join exists between monthTable and yearlySales table on yearId, it cannot be used because such a join would overstate the results by a factor of 12 (the number of months in each year).
    All three of the given validation rules are related to the same issue.
    Please read through the above text to see if it will help with your issue.
    Thanks,
    -Amith.l

  • Forcing full outer join between two facts according to common dimensions

    Hi everyone,I have an issue with the way obiee "joins" 2 fact tables regarding according to common dimensions.
    Let's assume 2 fact tables F1 and F2 and 2 dimension D1 and D2.
    Fi is joined to Dj thanks to IDs.
    F1 and F2 have got aggregates sum(mes1), respectively sum(mes2).
    The group by is performed on dim1 for D1 and dim2 for D2.
    The following 2 queries work fine...but separately:
    select dim1, dim2, sum(mes1) from F1, D1, D2 where ... group by dim1, dim2; //7 lines
    select dim1, dim2, sum(mes2) from F2, D1, D2 where ... group by dim1, dim2; //8 lines
    When I try to select dim1, dim2, sum(mes1) and sum(mes2), the following sql is created by the BI server:
    WITH SAWITH0 AS (
    select dim1, dim2, sum(mes1) c3 from F1, D1, D2 where ... group by dim1, dim2
    ), SAWITH1 AS (
    select dim1, dim2, sum(mes2) c3 from F2, D1, D2 where ... group by dim1, dim2
    select ... dim1,
         ... dim2,
         ... SAWITH0.c3,
         ... SAWITH1.c3
    FROM SAWITH0 LEFT OUTER JOIN SAWITH1
         on SAWITH0.dim1=SAWITH1.dim1 and SAWITH0.dim2=SAWITH1.dim2
    I get only 7 lines. It means I miss one line from the second query on F2.
    The solution is to perform a full outer join. (I tried in TOAD and changing LEFT by FULL is ok)
    How can I force the full outer join?
    Thanks a lot!

    If you use the fact vertical capabilities of OBIEE, it will normally perform a full outer join :
    http://gerardnico.com/wiki/dat/obiee/logical_sql/obiee_full_outer_join
    Check here for an example (replace the fact cross join by your second fact table F2)
    http://gerardnico.com/wiki/dat/obiee/bi_server/design/obiee_densification_design_preservation_dimension
    Cheers
    Nico

  • Non-conforming Dimensions modelling

    Hi
    I am using BIEE version 11.1.1.6
    I am struggling to model a situation where I do have 2 fact tables F_1 & F_2 and 3 dimensions D_1, D_2, D_3
    D_3 is the only conformed dimension
    D_1 is only connected to F_1, D_2 is only connected to F_2.
    Content levels for measures in F_1 are set to Total for D_2.
    Content levels for measures in F_2 are set to Total for D_1.
    In Answers I can't create a report where I filter on one or both of the non-conformed dimensions.
    I assume it's still possible to use non-conforming dimensions in analysis
    and filter the analysis on values from the non-conforming dimension? (The part of the analysis that can be filtered by these values, measures not connected to the non-conforming dimension will of course not be filtered).
    Are there any rules to follow in 11.1.1.6 modelling non-conforming dimensions besides setting measure content level to Total for the non-conforming dimension?
    Thanks for your help
    Andy

    Hi Andy
    Please find the blogs it will resolve ur issue.
    http://108obiee.blogspot.com/2009/08/joining-two-fact-tables-with-different.html
    http://www.kpipartners.com/blog/bid/83120/What-To-Do-When-OBIEE-Fact-Tables-Do-Not-Join-to-All-Dimension-Tables
    Thanks
    NK

  • 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.

  • Semi additive Measures across non time dimensions

    Hello,
    I need to make my measure semi additive across a non time dimension (Since I am getting totals at each level and I cant roll up the children to the parent, instead create a dummy member at the lower level for total and use FirstChild). Is it advisable to change the dimension type to time to achieve this functionality?
    Thanks
    Arun

    I had followed exactly the same approach specified in the paper without using parent child dimensions. I had created "blank" members instead of the same name as the parent member. Now, the issue is, I have to make the measure's aggregation as "FirstChild" so that it takes the "blank" member's value for the parent.
    Another issue is, I have multiple dimensions in the cube and I have aggregated data across dimensions in my source. For Example,
    Col1                                                          Col2
    Dimension A Level1 Member1           Dimension B Level 1 Member 1           1000
    Dimension A Level1 Member1           Dimension B Level 2 Member 1           500
    Dimension A Level1 Member1           Dimension B Level 2 Member 2           500
    Dimension A Level2 Member1           Dimension B Level 1 Member 1           2000
    Dimension A Level2 Member1           Dimension B Level 2 Member 1           1000
    Dimension A Level2 Member1           Dimension B Level 2 Member 2           1000
    Thanks
    Arun

  • Webcenter Site 11g : Cluster Install : logout issue facing.

    Hi Friends ,
    We have installed the Webcenter site 11g Cluster install on Weblogic server successfully. We have faced any issues while installation. After successful installtion , When we login to sample sites( going here & then) and click on the LOGOUT button on the page , its not logging out , again it is landing with same page where we clicked LOGOUT button.
    We shutdown one cluster server (NODE1) , and NODE2 was up and running , now logout issue is not persisting and same NODE2 was down and NODE1 was up , now also no issue. BUT , if we start accessing sites from LBR url , this logout issue facing. There is no Error in sites..log & cas.log.
    :-( we have created the ORacle SR , but still we have not received any soln.
    Please help us , what could be the issue here.
    Naveen

    It's possible this is due to the cas url not being set correctly. In SSOConfig.xml you have two places to set this
    casUrl - needs to be set to the external address for cas, this link will be included in pages visible to the end user (eg via webserver or loadbalancer).
    casInternalUrl - needs to be set to an internal address for cas, Sites/CS will call this directly (should not go through webserver/loadbalancer)
    If these are correct, then try to rule out whether the webserver/loadbalancer is an issue
    - is it session sticky?
    - if you set casUrl / casInternalUrl to point direct to cas can you login/logout direct to CS without the loadbalancer?
    Phil

Maybe you are looking for