Hi Vjbez1!
All facts and dimensions are identical! But all tables in this schema are duplicated and with different data.
The data is organized like:
dimension_organization
- dky_organization - name_organization
            1               Company X
            2               Company Y
dimension_organization_legacy
- dky_organization - name_organization
           1               Company Z
fact_billing_holding
- dky_day - dky_organization - dky_vendor - dky_consumer - dky_transaction_type - qtd_items
     20130101        1                1            1                 1                 50
     20130101        2                1            1                 1                 70
     20130102        1                1            1                 1                 14
     20130102        2                1            1                 1                 88
     20130103        1                1            1                 1                 22
     20130103        2                1            1                 1                 10
fact_billing_legacy
- dky_day - dky_organization - dky_vendor - dky_consumer - dky_transaction_type - qtd_items
     20130101        1              71           31                 12                88
     20130102        1              71           31                 12                70
     20130103        1              71           31                 12                92
In my analysis I want to see like this:
Organization | Total
Company X    | 86
Company Y    | 168
Company Z    | 250
Fernando.

Similar Messages

BMM layer creation (Star Schema Physical Layer) - What to add/not add?

Hi All,
I am just looking for any general feedback on the thought/question below.
I am setting out on creating my first BMM layer and trying to determine what I need to do in this layer that will be different and add value from what I already did in the physical layer. My data model is already defined as a star schema within my data mart source. So in the physical layer I have my facts imported along with the dimensions and I have joined them together as needed. Here is what I think I will setup as I move into the BMM layer:
1. I will add heirarchies as needed to enable drill down within my reports
2. I will need to add my calculations/measures to allow for any type of metric to be returned through a request in Answers
3. I do not see a large need to create logical tables (at least not yet) based on multiple physical source tables as my source is already a star schema and dimensionally modeled. For users that also already source a star schema at the physical layer .. do you find that you do a lot of logical table creation/mapping to add functionality or does your BMM look a lot like you Physical Layer?
Other than steps 1 and 2, I am not really sure how much additional manipulation I might do from the Physical to BMM layer since my Physical is already a star schema. Am I missing anything? Obviously everyone's data model and circumstances are different but I wasn't sure if maybe there were some good thoughts on what I might be missing (if anything)?
One last question .. I am not currently planning to use any aliases at the Physical Layer but I do plan to rename the tables at the presentation layer to be more business verbage like. Why are others using aliases?
Thanks in advance for the help.
K

Alastair, thanks for the advice. I'll definitely keep that in mind as I start to build out the BMM.
One question/issue I just ran into as I was wrapping up my Physical Layer mapping. When I check for global consistency, I am getting an error that is complaining that I have multiple joins defined between the same two tables (which I do). This is because I have the following setup:
TBL_A_FACT
F_ID_HIT
F_HIT_DESC
F_ID_MISSED
F_MISSED_DESC
TBL_B_DIM
F_ID
F_DESC
Table A joins to Table B in two ways:
TBL_A_FACT.F_ID_HIT = TBL_B_DIM.F_ID
TBL_A._FACT.F_ID_MISSED = TBL_B_DIM.F_ID
The F_IDs can be either hit or missed on any given fact record and the total distinct set exist in the dimension.
When I define two foreign key joins in the physical layer based on the relationship above and check Global Consistency, I get an error saying that "TBL_A and TBL_B have multiple joins define. Delete duplicate foreign keys if they exist" and it is listed as an error. I guess this makes sense because when the two tables are used in a request OBIEE would need to know how to join them (using the hit or missed field). What is the best approach for handling this..
- Should I define TBL_A twice in the physical layer as:
TBL_A (Alias TBL_A_HIT)
F_ID_HIT
F_ID_HIT_DESC
TBL_A (Alias TBL_A_MISSED)
F_ID_MISSED
F_ID_MISSED_DESC
Or do something like the above in the BMM layer?
Thanks for the help!
K
And then establish the relationships using these separate tables?

Star schema in OBIEE 11G

Hi Experts,
Please tell me the places in OBIEE 11G where i can design the start schema.is it only in Physical Layer or In BBM too?
Thanks-Bhaskar

Final point, for performance reasons you should also try to model data into star schema in the physical layer.
If the data is modelled as a true star then there are database features which optimise query performance. These features are set by a DBA when the Warehouse is configured (e.g. enable_star_transformations). The results with this parameter on/off can be staggering (query time reduced from minutes to seconds), showing the power of star schema.
When snowflakes occur, these performance features will not work as designed, and performance will be degraded. There are certain criteria that have to be met by the data e.g. bitmap indices on all of the foreign key columns in the fact.
Please mark if helpful / correct,
Andy
www.project.eu.com

Creation of star schema from snowflake schem in BMM layer

hi,
This is my situation.I have "Fact-table" which has Dim 1 .now Dim 1 is joined to Dim2,Dim3
Fact
|
Dim 1
|
| |
Dim 2 Dim 3
Now in Bmm Layer how can i make this snowfalke schema to star schema.I heard about making changes in the Logical Table source.And what will be the look of the presentation layer.
Any help is appricaited Guys.

In physical layer, you have a join between Dim 1 and Dim 2, Dim1 and DIm3, Fact and Dim1. In BMM for Dim1, in the sources, add Dim2 and Dim3. You may add both these dimensions in one single LTS if the data is not duplicate in the tables. In case the data is duplicated add them as seperate LTS in the sources for Dim1. Refer this post for reference -- Logical Table source source query
In BMM you need a join between Dim1 and Fact. Basically your Dim1 is sourced from three different tables which are your dimensions. This would transform your snowflake into star. In your presentation layer you will have all the columns from your dimensions (except for the duplicates, lets say you have column A in both dim1 and dim2, you should map this column in column mapping tab so as to enable BI server to pick the most economical source) and facts.
Hope this clears your question.

Star schema in Physical Layer

Recently, i came across a question from one of colleague. The discussion went as follows:
He asked me what is star schema and where can you define it? Physical layer or BMM layer?
I explained about star schema and answered his rest of the doubt that, we define it in BMM layer.
His immediate question is why can't we define it in Physical layer? Since BMM layer allows to build dimensional models, so, we have to build it in that layer itself is my reply. But, later in the evening, when i started thinking on my way to home, i started thinking about his doubt.
Here, what am curious to know is since we can join tables in Physical layer too, why can't we define star in Physical layer? and why only in BMM? and what are the difference in the Joins that we made in Physical layer to that of BMM layer?
I tired getting answers for these in documents and in some other online resources, but, am not succeed. So, am approaching this forum in anticipation. Can anyof you help us understanding these concepts better.

In OBIEE Server Administration Guide it is written for logical fk join:
Logical foreign key joins might be needed if the Oracle BI Server is to be used as an ODBC data
source for certain third-party query and reporting tools. Typically, you should not create logical
foreign keys. This capability is in the Administration Tool to provide compatibility with previous
releases.
And logical complex join:
The use of logical complex joins is recommended over logical key and foreign key joins.
And physical complex join:
In the physical layer of the repository, complex joins are joins over nonforeign key and primary key
columns. When you create a complex join in the physical layer, you can specify expressions and the
specific columns on which to create the join. When you create a complex join in the business model
layer, you do not specify expressions.
I agree, that always are some special cases, but in general it should be clear when to use which joins.
So, you should read chapters 4,5 one more time this administration guide [OBIEE server administration guide|http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E10415_01/doc/bi.1013/b31770.pdf]

Changing the LTS mapping in BMM layer to new Physical Alias table

Experts
I need to change the source table mapping in my BMM layer to new physical tables aliases.
I have finished BMM layer design (column name changes, business friendly names etc.) before actually creating the alias tables in the Physical layer and I know I hv to run for hiding now. I expected changing the logical source mapping to the new aliases will work but it's not the case though it works partially. Since the Column names are changed in the bmm, I have to manually change the Expression, Physical Table in the LTS column mapping tab for each non-matching name logical columns.
Column mapping is intact where both the BMM columns and the new Physical alias names match.
eg: CALENDER_YEAR(BMM) ---> CALENDAR_YEAR(Physical alias) mapping is intact but
Week Day(BMM) ---> WEEK_DAY(Physical alias) need to be changed manually.
Any tips/suggestions will be appreciated.
Regards,
Tom

Hi Tom,
I too do not see any other options here other than manually modifying the individual logical columns. When there is a new logical column, we have to map it manually to the physical column explicitly because the Admin tool will not know which physical column to pick up.
Hope this helps.
Thank you,
Dhar

Star schema cannot be mapped to multiple tables

Hello!
I am mapping dimension in AWM.
When I am drawing lines from the source columns to the target objects "Member". I get the message "star schema cannot be mapped to multiple tables". Sometimes I can workaround the problem by drawing the lines in a different order. But this dose not always work
I have a dimension that have several levels and hierarchy and I always get the message "star schema cannot be mapped to multiple tables" no matter in witch order I draw the lines to "Member".
Why do I get this message and how do I do to solve the problem?
Best regards,
Tina N Mörnstam

Hi Tina:
Is your dimension snowflaked? Are you mapping from more than one source table to the target dimension? Is the hierarchy formed over different tables?
Hazbleydi C. Verástegui

Cloning a schema using transportable tablespace in same database?

In 10g r2, is it possible to clone the schema in same database using transport tablespace?
sample syntax
impdp USERID=<TargetConnection> DIRECTORY=NHS_DIR Remap_Schema=TESTA:TESTB
TRANSPORT_DATAFILES='<TargetDataFile>' DumpFile=<DumpFileName> logfile=<LogFileName>

>
In 10g r2, is it possible to clone the schema in same database using transport tablespace?
sample syntax
impdp USERID=<TargetConnection> DIRECTORY=NHS_DIR Remap_Schema=TESTA:TESTB
TRANSPORT_DATAFILES='<TargetDataFile>' DumpFile=<DumpFileName> logfile=<LogFileName>
>
Well, why not simply test that yourself? You seem to know the command already. It is possible but with some effort:
You have to rename the original tablespace before importing it back. Also, you have to create the user testb with the appropriate privileges. The datafile that you import has to be renamed also, because a file with that name already belongs to the database.
Kind regards
Uwe
http://uhesse.wordpress.com

Tables icon displaying yellow in BMM layer.

Hi all,
When i was tring to drag drop tables from physical layer to BMM layer it's showing yellow icons.....
Scenario is as follows:
tables: EMP, DEPT, BONUS, SALGRADE.
I have created complex join in Physical layer between EMP and SALGRADE (condition is "EMP$".SAL BETWEEN "SALGRADE$".LOSAL AND "SALGRADE$".HISAL). Samething i have taken into BMM layer. 4 table icons showing yellow and checked for consistency..giving errors like there is no join of logical tables.
i have created join Physical layer will it not carry to BMM layer? Do i need to create same complex join in BMM layer? After creating the complex in BMM layer will those errors come again??
Please aswer to my questions..asap.
regards
ck

Chandra kanth wrote:
Gurus,
The other two tables (DEPT, BONUS) are not required to join but i just kept it like that in BMM layer.
1. I have created complex join between EMP and SALGRADE in physical layer and i also manually created complex join in BMM layer....it did not come when i drag drop the schema from physical to BMM layer. Do we require to create manually again the complex join in BMM layer?Yes.
>
2. After creating complex join in BMM layer EMP table icon shows white others are yellow. Will complex join not suffice to make error free (Consistent) in BMM layer?
Is it require to join all tables (to maintain a star schema)?
You need to create complex joins to create a star schema in BMM layer. This is needed to create an error free BMM layer.
3. As per the requirement i dont require to join other two tables (DEPT, BONUS).
What is the purpose of these tables?
>
Please advice if i am wrong in the above cases....and also please answer to all my questions.
Thanks in advance
chandra kanth.

Create min(date) for Customer in BMM layer

Hi guys,
I need help in creating a first order date for a customer. I want to do this in BMM layer and use directly in reports.
How should i create this?
Any help Appreciated.

I think its you sent me email with samilar Q.
If you are doing in BMM you need to understand the schema
assuming you got fact,day, custmer tables
and these joined as star.
you need to create a metric on fact as min(day.date) and set content tab to customer level
for this you might have to map day dim to fact using fact source properties add day table.
once you done as I said:
just pull mindate metric in answers run it and check physical sql that should be like
select min(date),cust_name from
fact,day,customer
where 2 joins goes
group by cust_name
Hope this helps, if helps mark

How to document your star-schemas and dashboards?

Hello practitioners,
We are new to OBIEE and started some weeks ago. We are a two-men team. One guy doing all the data design and the other for everything around Answers.
So it happens regularly that the other guy has to ask the one guy, about the exact definition and meaning of data-fields, he wants to use in Answers.
Being a real programmer the one guy only needs a proper, self-explainary field name as documentation, of course (or so he thought).
Question:
What tools and methods do you use to document the star-schemas and dashboards?
Being the other guy, it is important, that I pick the correct fields, while on the other hand I do not want to disect a dashboard I built a while back, everytime somebody wants something simular, just to figure out what I actually did, back then...
Thank you for your help
Turalf
Edited by: Turalf on Mar 24, 2010 12:03 PM

Hi Turalf,
Have you looked at the OBIEE Metadata Dictionary ? A method to allow answers users to gain access to column definitions, and you can view the mapping from Presentation, through BMM to Physical layer.
Im pretty sure you can expose comments from the RPD into this also.
http://obiee101.blogspot.com/2008/12/obiee-metadata-dictionary.html
Maybe you could look at the ODI - OBIEE data lineage also, it provides "report to source" mapping info :
http://www.oracle.com/technology/obe/fusion_middleware/ODI/OBI-ODI_Lineage/OBI-ODI_Lineage.htm
Hope this helps.

How to create logical fact table in BMM layer ?

Hello,
I have 3 Dimension table - 2 are in one schema and last is another schema. Using this 3 dimension tables, I need to create a logical fact table.
So, my question is whether we can create this fact table by joining these 3 dimension table which are in 2 different schema s ?
Thanks

Fiaz,
you are correct. We can use tables from different subject area to create a report. However, my question was related to rpd design. Sorry, I was not very clear about the queries earlier.
Here is the whole scenario in the physical layer of the rpd
Table name      Databse name      Connection pool name      Schema name
AV          AV_PXRPAM     AVAILABILITY          CRMODDEV
OUTAGE          AV_PXRPAM     AVAILABILITY          CRMODDEV
COMPANY          PXRPAM          PXRPAM_POOL          CRMODDEV
AV and OUTAGE have the joins already. I want to make a join between COMPANY with OUTAGE. And then I want to include a column from each of above tables to the logical fact table in the BMM layer. then I want to do a star schema with the logical fact table to the above 3 tables in the BMM layer.
Thanks

Design Fixed Assets Star Schema from OLTP DB

Hi,
Scope : Design Fixed Assets logical Star Schema for Demonstrate with OLTP tables
Our platform is Oracle 10g Forms and Reports deployed on Oracle 10g App Server._ At the moment we don’t have data warehouse constructed. We are pumping OLTP Data into Staging DB thru jobs and then by using materialized views getting the data in DWH DB which is in progress.
OBIEE 10g installed and working fine for testing.
We are planning to implement OBIEE for Reporting. As a starting point I would like to design Fixed Assets star schema to demonstrate FA reports in OBIEE from OLTP Tables.
FA- OLTP Tables:_
AC_UNIT_MASTR           – Business Units
AC_ACNT_MASTR           - Nominal Codes
AC_COST_CENTR_MASTR      - Departments
AC_MANTN_ASTS           - Assets transaction table
AC_AST_BAL_DETLS           – Period wise Asset summary
AC_AST_BAL_DETLS_V      - View
To achieve this
1).Import tables in physical layer and set physical joins
2).identify and create dimensions and set complex joins and then move to presentation layer.
Please suggest best approach to design Repository
Thanks
Regards,
Kulkarni
Edited by: hai_shailesh on Jan 25, 2012 11:36 PM
Edited by: hai_shailesh on Jan 25, 2012 11:38 PM
Edited by: hai_shailesh on Jan 25, 2012 11:39 PM

Hi Saichand,
Thanks for the response.
Already i referred that doc and completed practically. now i have to work on Finance data . as a starting point working with Fixed Assets module. already i designed centralised fact with dimensions as below
in physical&BMM layer defined relationship as below()
AC_UNIT_MASTR_D                  --> AC_AST_BAL_DETLS_F
AC_ACNT_YEAR_MASTR_D        --> AC_AST_BAL_DETLS_F
AC_ACNT_PERD_MASTR_D        --> AC_AST_BAL_DETLS_F
AC_COST_CENTR_MASTR_D      --> AC_AST_BAL_DETLS_F
AC_AST_GRP_MASTR_D            --> AC_AST_BAL_DETLS_F
AC_AST_SUBGRP_MASTR_D      --> AC_AST_BAL_DETLS_F
and
AC_ACNT_YEAR_MASTR_D        --> AC_ACNT_PERD_MASTR_D
When iam trying to create a dimension for Periods(AC_ACNT_PERD_MASTR) , Periods dimesnion created with two tables
AC_ACNT_YEAR_MASTR_D,AC_ACNT_PERD_MASTR_D
Please advice..
Regards,
Kulkarni

Star schema for a uploaded data sheet

Hi All gurus,
I am new to this tech . I have a requirement like this , I have to prepare the star schema for this data sheet as below .
REPORT_DATE     PREPARED_BY     Units On-time     Units Late     Non-Critical On-time     Non-Critical Lates      Non-Critical DK On-time     Non-Critical DK Lates
2011 -01     Team1     1
2011-02     Team1
2011-03     Team1
2011 -01     Team2
2011-02     Team2                         7     1
2011-03     Team2                              4 5
2011 -01     Team3
2011-02     Team3
2011-03     Team3     1                         3
(Take blank fields as zeros)
Note : There are 3 report date types 2011-01,02,03 and three teams team 1,2,3 as text data and all others columns contain number data .
I am given Time as dimensional table containing the Report Date and Whole sheet as Data table . So how to define the relationship for this in Physical and BMM ?
I am thinking to make Time as Dimensional Table and the whole table(as Data) as a fact table in the Physical layer . And then in the BMM , I want to carve out a Logical Dimension called Group from the Data Physical Table and then make Group and Time as dimensional Table and Data as Fact table .
Is this approach is correct ? please suggest me and if have any better Idea ,then please note down what are the tables to be taken as Dimension and Fact table in both physical and BMM . Your help willl be appreciated ,so thanks in advance . You can also advice for any change in no of Physical tables in the Physical schema design ..

Your' s suggestion utterly anticipated ..

Star Schema and MV's

Hi Guys,
I have designed a Star schema for one of my datamart and my client is after me suggesting that over that I should create a MV to provide a consolidated view. I am trying to convience my client not to do so with the points as below:
1.     As we have created a Star Schema in the database we should take advantages of the same and should avoid creating another layer of reporting which in future will increase the complexity of the queries while expanding the functionality of the mart.
2.     We have to create a complete refresh MV and during refresh data will not be available for reporting to users and the duration will increase over the period of time once the data increases
3.     As MV are a table on a disk using a MV in this case will consume the tablespace which will increase over the period of time.
Please can you experts suggest of any more points or additions. We are using SAP BO as a reporting tool in our organization wherein a Universe can be created easily for reporting.
Cheers,
Shaz

I have designed a Star schema for one of my datamart and my client is after me suggesting that over that I should create a MV to provide a consolidated view. I am trying to convience my client not to do so with the points as below:You are convincing them to NOT do one of the the things materialized views were originally introduced to provide?
I'm purposely going all the way back to 8i documentation here to emphasize the point.
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/A87860_01/doc/server.817/a76994/qr.htm#35520
" Overview of Query RewriteOne of the major benefits of creating and maintaining materialized views is the ability to take advantage of query rewrite, which transforms a SQL statement expressed in terms of tables or views into a statement accessing one or more materialized views that are defined on the detail tables. The transformation is transparent to the end user or application, requiring no intervention and no reference to the materialized view in the SQL statement. Because query rewrite is transparent, materialized views can be added or dropped just like indexes without invalidating the SQL in the application code. "
>
The theory behind query rewrite is this: have them build their queries based on your star schema (or you a build a traditional view that does that), then build a materialized view that mirrors the query/view. If the materialized view is refreshing or not up-to-date, their queries will run (more slowly) against the star schema. If it is up-to-date it will be used instead, providing faster results.
But before you go to that trouble: they are asking for a consolidated view (presumably something easier to query - common in data warehousing). You can create a view to provide this. If that view is not fast enough for their performance requirements, materialize it. Yes, the materialized view uses space, but that space is the price you pay for meeting the performance requirement.

Map cloned star schema in same BMM Layer.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for