Owb evaluation

Hi, I'm currently testing OWB to see if it's a worth it ETL tool.
So far, my biggest concern is about target modeling. I know I can transfert data into tables (to keep a 3NF model ??) or into dimension/fact (star schema).
My question is, Is it possible to use the 2 models (3NF/star) together ? I don't want to only have a star schema as target
Thanks
p.s. sorry for my bad english

Hi,
Yes, it's easily possible. OWB's strength lies in providing a 'wizard based' star schema creation - i.e once you design dimensions, it guides you into creating proper fact joins etc.
However, OWB can be easily used to design targets of your choice - the normalization is something you will define and build in.
Cheers

Similar Messages

Evaluating OWB E-Business Suite Connector

Hello, everyone.
I'm evaluating the E-Business Suite Connector for OWB to determine if it would be a good investment for my organization.
Has anyone had experience with this connector? If so, can you provide some details as to how you are using it, what sort of time/cost savings it has provided, if any, and most importantly, what value does the connector bring as opposed to simply having the Oracle E-Business database as a source database.
Thanks for your time.
Dan

Hussein,
You said
"As long as you run a non-production instance, I believe you can still use the software after the 30 days and the OPN membership is not required.".
How is the above true when the license agreement clearly says "30 day trial"? What is your source?
Here are the exact wordings:
The "Trial Term" shall be 30 Days from the date of your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Later on the agreement says:
The rights granted to you under this Agreement expire at the end of the Trial Term.
If you decide to use any of the Programs after the end of the Trial Term, you must acquire a license for each Program from Oracle.
You said
"Where you get this option from? What is your reference?"
I talked to Oracle OPN Department over the phone.
Edited by: user2648997 on Jan 7, 2010 4:16 PM
Edited by: user2648997 on Jan 7, 2010 4:17 PM
Edited by: user2648997 on Jan 7, 2010 4:23 PM

OWB bugs, missing functionality and the future of OWB

I'm working with OWB for some time now and there are a lot of rough edges to discover. Functionality and stability leave a lot to be desired. Here's a small and incomplete list of things that annoy me:
Some annoying OWB bugs (OWB 10g 10.1.0.2.0):
- The debugger doesn't display the output parameters of procedures called in pre-mapping processes (displays nothing, treats values as NULL). The mapping itself works fine though.
- When calling selfmade functions within an expression OWB precedes the function call with a constant "Functions." which prevents the function from being executed and results in an error message
- Occasionally OWB cannot open mappings and displays an error message (null pointer exception). In this case the mapping cannot be opened anymore.
- Occasionally when executing mappings OWB doesn't remember changes in mappings even when the changes were committed and deployed
- When using aggregators in mappings OWB scrambles the order of the output attributes
- The deployment of mappings sometimes doesn't work. After n retries it works without having changed anything in the mapping
- When recreating an external table directly after dropping the table OWB recreates the external table but always displays both an error message and a success message.
- In Key Lookups the screen always gets garbled when selecting an attribute as a join condition
- Usage of constants results in aborts in the debugger
- When you reconcile a table used in a key lookup the lookup condition sometimes changes. OWB seems to remember only the position of the lookup condition attribute but not the name.
- In the process of validating a mapping often changes in the mapping get lost and errors occur like 'Internal Errors' or 'Null Pointer Exceptions'.
- When you save the definition of external tables OWB always adds 2 whitespace columns to the beginning of all the lines following 'ORGANISATION EXTERNAL'. If you save a lot of external table definitions you get files with hundreds of leading whitespaces.
Poor or missing functionality:
- No logging on the level of single records possible. I'd like the possibility to see the status of each single record in each operator like using 'verbose data' in PowerCenter
- The order of the attributes cannot be changed. This really pisses me off expecially if operators like the aggregator scramble the order of attributes.
- No variables in expressions possible
- Almost unusable lookup functionality (no cascading lookups, no lookup overrides, no unconnected lookups, only equal condition in key lookups)
- No SQL overrides in soruces possible
- No mapplets, shared containers or any kind a reusable transformations
- No overview functionality for mappings. Often it's very hard to find a leftover operator in a big mapping.
- No copy function for attributes
- Printing functionality is completely useless
- No documentation functionality for mappings (reports)
- Debugger itself needs debugging
- It's very difficult to mark connections between attributes of different operations. It's almost impossible to mark a group of connections without marking connections you don't want to mark.
I really wonder which of the above bugs and mssing functionality 'Paris' will address. From what I read about 'Paris' not many if at all. If Oracle really wants to be a competitor (with regard to functionality) to Informatica, IBM/Ascential etc. they have a whole lot of work to do or purchase Informatica or another of the leading etl tool
vendors.
What do you think about OWB? Will it be a competitor for the leading etl tools or just a cheap database add on and become widely used like SAB BW not for reasons of technology or functionality but because it's cheap?
Looking forward to your opinions.
Jörg Menker

Thanks to you two for entertaining my thoughts so far. Let me respond to you latest comments.
Okay, lets not argue which one is better.. when a tool is there .. then there are some reasons to be there...But the points raised by Jorg and me are really very annoying. Overall I agree with both yours and Jorg's points (and I did not think it was an argument...merely sharing our observations with each other (;^)
The OWB tool is not as mature as Informatica. However, Informatica has no foothold in the database engine itself and as I mentioned earlier, is still "on the outside looking in..." The efficiency and power of set-based activity versus row-based activity is substantial.
Looking at it from another way lets take a look at Microstrategy as a way of observing a technical strategy for product development. Microstrategy focused on the internals (the engine) and developed it into the "heavy-lifting" tool in the industry. It did this primarily by leveraging the power of the backend...the database and the hosting server. For sheer brute force, it was champion of the day. It was less concerned with the pretty presentation and more concerned with getting the data out of the back-end so the user didn't have to sit there for a day and wait. Now they have begun to focus on the presentation part.
Likewise this seems to be the strategy that Oracle has used for OWB. It is designed around the database engine and leverages the power of the database to do its work. Informatica (probably because it needs to be all things to all people) has tended to view the technical offerings of the database engine as a secondary consideration in its architectural approach and has probably been forced to do so more now that Oracle has put themselves in direct competition with Informatica. To do otherwise would make their product too complex to maintain and more vendor-specific.
I am into the third data warehousing/data migration project and my previous two have been on Informatica (3 years on it).I respect your experience and your opinions...you are not a first timer. The tasks we have both had to solve and how we solved them with these tools are not necessarily the same. Could be similar in instances; could be quite different.
So the general tendency is to evaluate the tool and try to see how things that were needed to be done in my previous projects can be done with this tool. I am afraid to say .. I am still not sure how these can be implemented in OWB. The points raised by us are probably the fall out of this deficiency.One observation that I would make is that in my experience, calls to the procedural language in the database engine have tended to perform very poorly with Informatica. Informatica's scripting language is week. Therefore, if you do not have direct usability of a good, strong procedural language to tackle some complicated tasks, then you will be in a pickle when the solution is not well suited to a relational-based approach. Informatica wants you to do most things outside of the database (in the map primarily). It is how you implement the transformation logic. OWB is built entirely around the relational, procedural, and ETL components in the Oracle database engine. That is what the tool is all about.
If cost is the major factor for deciding a tool then OWB stands far ahead...Depends entirely on the client and the situation. I have implemented solutions for large companies and small companies. I don't use a table saw to cut cake and I don't use a pin knife to fall trees. Right tool for the right job.
...thats what most managers do .. without even looking how in turn by selecting such a tool they make the life tough for the developers.Been there many times. Few non-technical managers understand the process of tool evaluation and selection and the value a good process adds to the project. Nor do they understand the implications of making a bad choice (cost, productivity, maintainability).
The functionality of OWB stands way below Informatica.If you are primarily a GUI-based implementer that is true. However, I have often found that when I have been brought in to fix performance problems with Informatica implementations that the primary problem is usually with the way that the developer implemented it. Too often I have found that the developer understands how to implement logic in the GUI component (the Designer/Maps and Sessions) with a complete lack of understanding of how all this activity will impact load performance (they don't understand how the database engine works.) For example, a strong feature in Informatica is the ability to override the default SQL statement generated by Informatica. This was a smart design decision on Informatica's part. I have frequently had to go into the "code" and fix bad joins, split up complex operations, and rip out convoluted logic to get the maps to perform within a reasonable load window. Too often these developers are only viewing the problem through the "window" of the tool. They are not stepping back and look at the problem in the context of the overall architecture. In part Informatica forces them to do this. Another possible factor is they probably don't know better.
"One tool...one solution"
Microstrategy until recently had been suffering from that same condition of not allowing the developer to create the actual query). OWB engineers need to rethink their strategy on overriding the SQL.
The functionality of OWB stands way below Informatica.In some ways yes. If you do a head-to-head comparison of the GUI then yes. In other ways OWB is better (Informatica does not measure up when you compare it with all of the architectural features that the Oracle database engine offers). They need to fix the bugs and annoyances though.
.. but even the GUI of Informatica is better than OWB and gives the developer some satisfaction of working in it.Believe me I feel your pain. On the other hand, I have suffered from Informatica bugs. Ever do a port from one database eingine to another just to have it convert everything into multi-byte? Ever have it re-define your maps to parallel processing threads when you didn't ask it to?
Looking at the technical side of things I can give you one fine example ... there is no function in Oracle doing to_integer (to_number is there) but Informatica does that ... Hmm-m-m...sorry, I don't get the point.
The style of ETL approach of Informatica is far more appealing.I find it unnecessarily over-engineered.
OWB has two advantages : It is basically free of cost and it has a big brother in Oracle.
It is basically free of cost...When you are another "Microsoft", you can throw your weight around. The message for Informatica is "don't bite the hand that feeds you." Bad decisions at the top.
Regards,
Dan Phillips

OWB 9i Features.

Hi All,
I am planing to prepare a comparison document for feature provided by Oracle Warehouse Builder & Ab initio ver 1.11.15 as ETL.
OWB config details
Oracle Warehouse Builder Client 9i Ver 9.2.0.2.8
Oracle Warehouse Builder Repository Ver 9.2.0.2.0.
Windows XP OS.
I believe following features are not avaialable in OWB 9i Release.
1> OWB doesn't support Array, Union, Vector handling.
2> OWB can read only ASCII Serial files & not Binary, Multifiles.
3> Global Library feature is not available in OWB. To make it clear in Abinitio there is concept of Project Parameter file which can hold Global Variables can be referred in Ab initio graph, also these variables value can be assigned by execution of Unix Shell script.
4> OWB doesn't support dynamic execution in a mapping. E.g. If a mapping consist of 5 flow operators at run time based on certain criteria certain flow operators can be disabled & will not get executed. This feature is available in Abinitio.
5> Change Manager in OWB provides limited feature for Config Management.
6> Optimization can be achieved by setting Set Based or Row Based option in configuration of OWB mapping.
7> No flow operator is available for Cumulative summary records.
8> Plug in component is required for Name & Address flow operator.
I am aware that Oracle is planing to launch a new release OWB 10 G & it may be possible that some of above features will be available in the new release.
Can someone please confirm my understanding is correct?
Thanks in Advance.
Regards,
Vidyanand

Hi Vidyanand,
I will try to address some of your concerns/questions, but may need some more information on some of them:
1> OWB doesn't support Array, Union, Vector handling.
JPD: Array's are supported in the next release (end of the year). I'm not sure what you mean with Union (I'm guessing this NOT as SQL union) and vector handling. Can you elaborate a bit on those terms?
2> OWB can read only ASCII Serial files & not Binary, Multifiles.
JPD: OWB supports the capabilities of SQL Loader and External Tables. SQL Loader should be able to handle multiple files...
3> Global Library feature is not available in OWB. To make it clear in Abinitio there is concept of Project Parameter file which can hold Global Variables can be referred in Ab initio graph, also these variables value can be assigned by execution of Unix Shell script.
JPD: We are adding both global and local variable support in OWB (end of the year). You will be able to store the variables on the platform, which of course is in the database (secure and easy to access).
4> OWB doesn't support dynamic execution in a mapping. E.g. If a mapping consist of 5 flow operators at run time based on certain criteria certain flow operators can be disabled & will not get executed. This feature is available in Abinitio.
JPD: While this sounds very interesting, I'm struggling a bit with when you would want to use this, and even more with how the flow would be linked together if I randomly switch of operators...
One of the things to keep in mind is that OWB generates code (I believe Ab Initio does not and interprets metadata at runtime). So this feature is harder to implement in a code generator. However I'm not convinced this is a crucial feature for ETL... Any thoughts?
5> Change Manager in OWB provides limited feature for Config Management.
JPD: Change Manager is intended for version management. We are adding full multi-configuration support in the next release where you can attach physical characteristic to objects. That combined with Change Manager will give you a much better configuration management tool.
6> Optimization can be achieved by setting Set Based or Row Based option in configuration of OWB mapping.
JPD: This is actually not correct. Set based vs row based will influence performance but is not intended for just that! It gives you different ways of interpreting a graph. In Row based you can do if-then code and row-by-row evaluations. Setbased has only SQL language as implementation.
You can influence performance with various parameters:
- Oracle DB Hints on both extract and load operators (in mapping that is)
- Set the parallel degree on the objects (invokes database parallelism)
- Influence the various code flavors with:
> Bulk Processing and Bulk Size for processing multiple rows in one go (for rowbased settings)
> Parallel row code (for rowbased settings)
The latter allows you run PL/SQL row based sections in parallel within the DB (transparently).
7> No flow operator is available for Cumulative summary records.
JPD: I'm not sure what this means, is this covered by the aggregator?
8> Plug in component is required for Name & Address flow operator.
JPD: OWB supports this natively. What you do need is to purchase the library files that the operator runs on and you can do that from First Logic, Trillium and Data Flux allowing you to use OWB with the market leading data libraries (or with localized ones if desired). We think this is a much stronger story than a closed box vendor specific solution. OWB is intended to work globally and we open up this interface as some vendors have better support in some regions as others.
But just to state this again, you do NOT need any plug-ins into the client tool and it is all there natively. You just have a choice of data libraries.
Match/Merge is of course also supported and this is completely native (and free of charge).
I sincerely think that OWB has the strongest data quality story in the ETL business!

OWB - Flat file to oracle table

Second message, please read.
OS- Microsoft windows 2000 5.00.2195 Service Pack 2
OWB client---9.0.3.33.0
OWB Repository--9.0.3.0.1
Database--oracle 9i Enterprise Edition 9.0.1.3.1 with the partioning option Jserver Release9.0.1.3.0
OEM--9.0.1.0.0
I have created mapping between the source(flat file)and target(oracle)using Oracle Warehouse Builder. Mapping was validated, configured and it successfully generated without errors. The ‘Deploy’ button and the ‘Run’ button are disabled. How can I run/deploy this mapping ?
The above OWB copy was downloaded from the Oracle corp website. Is this version an evaluation copy? Alternatively Is this a beta copy ?
Please help.

Dear All,
I have a problem with loading flat files to oracle tables using OWB 9.2
i created a map with my flat file as a source and my oracle table as a target,and i created a connector between the target location and the flat file location.And i deployed the connector and registered the flat file location using my PC information and the path of the files on my pc.
I generated the map and saved the .ctl file and deployed the map,and hence trying to load the ctl file using the sql loader as the following:
C:\Documents and Settings\CORAL 2000>sqlldr owb_rt_rep/owb_rt_rep@ofsa
control = D:\oracle2\ofsa\owb\codegen\BM_DEBIT_CARDS_DAT_MAP.ctl
---where owb_rt_rep is my runtime repository user.
I got the following error:
SQL*Loader-350: Syntax error at line 18.
Expecting "(", found ".".
INTO TABLE "{{TRG_LOC1.Schema}}"."BM_DEBIT_CARDS_DAT"
--where trg_loc1 is my target location and bm_debit_cards_dat is my target table.
I tried to grant from the target schema the privelages to the runtime user incase its the problem,but still it didn't work.
Any ideas??
Dina Nagia
Message was edited by:
Dina Nagia

New training materials available for OWB 11.2

Oracle University now offers an instructor-led course on OWB11.2 entitled Data Integration and ETL with Oracle Warehouse Builder.
The entire course is 5 days long and is divided into two parts:
* Part I is 3 days and covers designing and debugging ETL mappings, performing data cleansing, integrating with OBIEE and other basic ETL functionality included in the Oracle Database license.
* Part II is 2 days and covers metadata management, accessing non-Oracle sources (code templates), right-time data warehousing, and the other features in the Enterprise ETL/ ODI EE license.
For links to this and other training resources, including the free OBE's, see http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/warehouse/htdocs/OTN_Training.html

The Linux version of OWB 11gR2 was released with DB 11gR2 for Linux on Sept 1, 2009.
Typically, OWB conforms to the DB schedule for releasing other platforms. However, upon receiving numerous requests for OWB on Windows, we're evaluating the possibility of releasing a Windows stand-alone client sooner rather than later. At this time, though, there are no official announcements on when to expect that.

Aborting Mapping Jobs in OWB

Hi,
Depending upon some condition evaluating to a true (for say .. some attribute in a expression operator evaluating to some predefined value), I need to abort the mapping execution.
Is there any way for implementing this in OWB, if so please explain how?
-Arnab

I am afraid that Public Transformations with exceptions does not abort the mapping. The mapping executes successfully and for the case where the exception condition is met, the function raises the exception and returns a NULL value. The target table field gets populated with a NULL value for that record.
Is there any other way, there is something called WB_ABORT in the Oracle Library to which OWB has access. Does anyone have some idea, how that can be used?
Regards
-Arnab Panja

OWB Install

I am trying to do a first time install of OWB on Linux platform (back end Oracle 9.2.0.3) for evaluation purpose and here are my questions.
Can my Design & Runtime repository reside in the same database along with the target database - Basically I am trying to use different schemas in a same database?
After the install, per instructions I was looking for $ORACLE_HOME/owb/bin/unix directory and the directory itself was not there -- Did I miss something during install?
How do I install the Design client on my Windows desktop? Is there a seperate download for that?
I am trying to have a Windows based designer with repository and target databases on Linux-Oracle backend - Is this feasible?
Thanks
Alex

1. Can my Design & Runtime repository reside in the same database along with the target database - Basically I am trying to use different schemas in a same database?
Yes. You just use/deploy to different schemas.
2. After the install, per instructions I was looking for $ORACLE_HOME/owb/bin/unix directory and the directory itself was not there -- Did I miss something during install?
Need to check a linux install. will get back to you on this one.
3. How do I install the Design client on my Windows desktop? Is there a seperate download for that?
Yes. see http://otn.oracle.com/software/products/warehouse/index.html
4. I am trying to have a Windows based designer with repository and target databases on Linux-Oracle backend - Is this feasible?
Yes. Just install the designer on windows and point to the database on the linux machine to install the design-time and runtime repositories.
Thanks
Paul

OWB free version 10.2

Dear -
I am presently evaluating OWB V 10 R2 for a fitment for data transformation (I know we have more recent releases available) and was wondering where can I find information about the free release. I tried to search the forum as well and was not able to get any relevant information.
What I am looking for is: -
1. What are drawbacks/limitations of using a free version as compared to a licensed copy?
2. Where can I find more information about the internal job execution mechanism by Oracle Workflow Manager (used to execute OWB job in my current scenario)?
3. What benefits I can have if I procure licenses for OWB?
4. Is there a possibility, as I heard, that jobs stay most of time in waiting state with the free release, due to limitations on number of process which can execute at any moment of time?
Any help is highly appreciated.
Thanks upfront for all your suggestions and pointers.
Regards

Hi,
there are no diferent OWB releases - "free" and "licensed". Instead there is a single OWB release but to legally use several features (like SCD type 2/3, pluggable mapping, variables in processflows, configurations, etc.) you must buy ODI Enterprise Edition license.
With most Oracle database (except free Oracle XE) you get free of charge OWB Basic ETL (correspondes to OWB10gR1 features set).
Link to license rules is placed on [OWB product page|http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/developer-tools/warehouse/overview/index.html] (look for pink square with hedaing "Understand OWB Feature Groups and Required Licenses"), this link direct you to these documents
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/developer-tools/warehouse/licensing-089752.html
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/developer-tools/warehouse/owb-feature-management-licensing-344706.pdf
Regards,
Oleg

Basic datawarehouse implementation concept in context to owb and awm

Hi
I am in the evaluation phase of a project where by i have to comment on tools for warehouse implementation. WHAT WE CAN DO AND CAN NOT DO
ROLAP or MOLAP or should we go hybrid
There will be high volume of records DAILY going to the warehouse scd2, scd2 ,scd3 etc.
So suggested ROLAP implementation at the lowest granularity...transaction detail. OWB as tool
then there will be marts for specific business area ...should be lowest granularity ..so ROLAP implementation. USING OWB as tool
There will be one MOLAP implementation for aggregation and materialized view as cube . ( take advantage of query rewerite for aggregated results) USING AWM
now the question is CAN WE CREATE ONLY MOLAP warehouse using AWM that can serve aggregate as well as low gran transaction details.
we have to have owb for transformations as awm does not provide transformation .
for value based hierarchies and multiple hierarchies per dimension options there is no support in OWB for ROLAP implementation.
this only works for molap ..USING AWM
so how do we go about it ..OR A MIXED SCHEMA POSSIBLE
any suggestions pls
Cheers
Yojj

The local bind/rebind/unbind restriction is still there and it will always be there.
I would look at
(a) RMI/IIOP, where you use COSNaming as a registry, which doesn't have that registriction, and which also has location-independent object identifiers
(b) Jini.

OWB object creation/import error

I installed OWB for evaluation on Windows XP.
OWB version is 10.1.0.4 and the database is 10g release 2.
While trying to create a target or trying to import source table, owb fails with
a "NULL" error. The detailed error is given below, pls help.
null
null
     at oracle.wh.repos.impl.foundation.DirtyCache.persist(DirtyCache.java:442)
     at oracle.wh.repos.impl.foundation.DirtyCache.persist(DirtyCache.java:355)
     at oracle.wh.repos.impl.foundation.DirtyCache.persist(DirtyCache.java:233)
     at oracle.wh.repos.impl.foundation.CacheMediator.postChanges(CacheMediator.java:458)
     at oracle.wh.repos.impl.foundation.CacheMediator.postChanges(CacheMediator.java:451)
     at oracle.wh.repos.impl.foundation.NestedTransactionManager.removeLatestSavepoint(NestedTransactionManager.java:81)
     at oracle.wh.repos.impl.transaction.TransactionManager.commitNestedTransaction(TransactionManager.java:392)
     at oracle.wh.repos.impl.transaction.TransactionManager.endModalInteraction(TransactionManager.java:483)
     at oracle.wh.ui.integrator.common.ImportElementTransaction.run(ImportWizard.java:1058)

963510 wrote:
What am I doing wrong??Posting this in the APEX forum instead of the {forum:id=76} one?
You also appear to be trying to reinvent the wheel, as all of these types are already defined in Oracle Spatial.

Pls help to find a good source for technical OWB overview

Hello Guys,
I am starting a new job soon where OWB is a major commercial tool to build DW/DMarts with the Siebel Analytics, SharePoint, Oracle Discover and other Front-end reporting systems. I have never been used this tool before. I do have 10 years of hands-on DW experience with terabytes DB using PL/SQL/C/Informatica/Unix scripting based on the star/snowflake schemas and Multidimensional DB in Oracle RDBMS/Essbase. Could you pls recommend me some sources(books, manuals, forum and etc) where I can get a technical overview/architecture of OWB. I think the covered topics would be:
plug-in, visual interface vs scripting, APIs, all available ETL solutions, restart ability, error handling, data models can support, performance issues, cross vendor product evaluation and etc. What would be the best source to start it for person who has a solid understanding of DW but do not have hands-on experience with OWB?. Thanks in advance Dina

Hi Dina,
...the best Source for Infromation is still here ;-)
I´m working since 3 Years with the OWB, in different Versions and i think
here´re a lot of Proffessionals in these Forum.
So, if you´ve an explizit Question, post and post and post :-)
Documetations you can also found here :
http://www.oracle.com/technology/documentation/warehouse.html
and here:
http://www.tu-ilmenau.de/fakia/DWT-UEbungen.5382.0.html (german)
and a blog:
http://blogs.oracle.com/warehousebuilder/
Regards and lots of Luck in the new Job
Lone

Ordering of mapping evaluation

I have a single flat file (with strongly denormalized data), which should be a data source for three targets: a cube and two of it's dimensions.
For some reasons I prefer to use one mapping for all three targets. Reasons are:
- Flat file I have is a partial data source; it does not contain all data but changes only. If I do three mappings it will be more difficult to trace if one of them missed to work. For example (theoretically) new flat file can arrive and replace previous at the gap between mapping execution.
- Audit browser's execution report will give me a single report of execution instead of three different-placed.
Maybe these reasons are wrong.
First of all I created mapping with a single data source and three branches of execution. For this mapping OWB generates package with "cube-than-dimensions" evaluation; it places call of cube-evaluation branch before calls of dimension branches. This does not affected if I change creation order of operators etc.
Then I put second data source operator for the same external table. One of data sources feeds dimensions while second feeds cube. In this case OWB generates a very strange package: it evaluates one dimension, then cube, then other dimension. I. e. it's a half of work :-)
Then I put third data source operator for the same table; each of data sources feeds it own target. In this case OWB generates a "cube-then-dimensions" evaluation again.
Can it be directed to place a cube evaluation at the last of mapping? What should be the right technique in my case?

It is recommended to load dimensions and cubes separately in separate mappings - these are logically separate operations that should be performed in a strict sequence - first dimensions, then cubes, while the execution sequence in a single mapping is not guaranteed.
Also, you can then build a process flow and consolidate the mappings in a single process flow where you can manage the sequence of execution by (for example) running the dimension loading mappings first, in parallel. Then, if all the dimensions are correctly loaded, load the cube. This way you can better manage the dependencies and the error handling of the load process.
Regards:
Igor

How to deactivate OWB Execution?

Hi,
Im not able to execute my mappings. It has been successfully validated and deployed, but couldnt excute the mappings. In audit browser it shows the status as busy. How can I solve this problem? Where can I find the audit id in OWB?
Regards
Kishan

100% Agreed. Use of rule priority as any form of substitute for fully expressing the logic within the policy/rule would be considered poor practice. There are very limited uses for rule priority that are documented, but use of them to force evaluation order in lieu of fully expressing the conditions is not one of them. The recommended approach is to fully express all conditions and rely on the logical dependence between rules to "prioritize" the evaluation of them.

OWB and infomatica

Hi,
How do justify or rate OWB over infomatica?
Is it wise for me to use OWB in my business?
i need some good suggestion
Mani

Hi Mani
Boy you start with the big ones!
My two cents worth:
Like any software evaluation you need to match your needs with the functionality of the different offerings.
I think it safe to say that Informatica is a more mature product as is Ascential (now IBM) but OWB is catching up.
In our case we looked at our sources and had only three (3) different types: Oracle databases, SQL Server databases and flat files. I haven't written any maps against the SQL Server database yet but OWB has worked very well for me against the Oracle and flat file sources. The external table is especially nice for flat files and even though I have seen some comments against them, they have worked very well for me.
We compared what we needed and what it would cost to get the job done with each product and OWB won due to the functionality that we needed and the price. There is quite a difference in price.
From what I've heard Informatica is easier to use if you have a lot of data coming from the mainframe environment.
Good luck with your selection.
Gary

Owb evaluation

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for