Shared members and consolidation processes

Hi guys,
I'm working giving support to a HFM application and I need some advice, since I'm a little confused. I have 4 different chart of entities:
1) ComConsol
2) Legal
3) BGroups
4) Alternate
I was trying to lock the data of ComConsol in a grid when I realized that the status was CN. I run the consolidation and the status changed to OK. However, Legal, BGroups and Alternate changed their status to CN. When I run the consolidation for Legal, then ComConsol needs to be consolidated again.
I believe that it could be related to some shared members, but I'm not quite sure.
Any advice?
Thank you, guys.

Hi,
If u can run the consolidation @ primary hierarchy first and then go for the consolidation of rest of the hierarchies so that u can't see any consolidation changes in primary hierarch after running the consolidation @ alternative hierarchies.

Similar Messages

  • Shared members and dynamic calc

    I am trying to replicate a new cube from current GL cube and wish to remove unused shared members if they have any impact on essbase.
    2/3 of my accounts (dense) member is stored with the remainder being shared members. Shared members do not add to block size. But having so many of them, does it impact on calc scripts or retrievals or any other impacts?
    Secondly, in accounts and divisions, we have four levels. except for level 0, the remaining levels are all dynamic calc. Division is sparse member. Its not advisable to have dynamic calc on dense dimension. What about sparse dimension like division? Will it be better to change level 2&3 to dynamic and change level 1 to store as well?
    We have also been advised by our consultant to change accounts to sparse dimension considering the number of times we need to update outline for new members (stored and shared).
    Dimension          Type          Stored     Shared
    Measure               Dense     1378     796     rest
    Time               Dense     106     13     rest
    Year               Dense     9     8     
    Currency          Sparse     12     9     
    Scenario          Sparse     41     38     
    Market               Sparse     20     12     
    Division          Sparse     490     302     rest
    Product               Sparse     635     308     
    Reportcode          Sparse     327     299

    Hi,
    Having shared members in dense hierarchy will not have much of impact on Cube size or retrieval performance.
    but its always advisable to avoid unnecessary hierarchies (shared or stored or dynamic).
    Having top level dense members as dynamic lines is a good design but having sparse dynamic calc will impact retrieval performance.
    its not at all advisable to make sparse members as dynamic calc but if needed we can make sparse members with very few children as dynamic calc (or dynamic calc & store). yet again its not advisable to have a dynamic calc children to a sparse stored parent as this will affect the batch calculation while aggregating parent sparse member.
    And as suggested by your consultant it is feasible to make the dimension getting modified more often, as a sparse dimension as this will reduce the restructuring time (sparse restructure will take less time compared to dens restructure).
    But that alone cannot be considered as factor as there are many other factors to be considered for making a dimension sparse.
    - Krish

  • UDAs re shared members and Intersect

    I'm INTERSECTing two sets:
    Leaf-level from [Entities].CurrentMember and
    UDA([Entities],"myuda" (also leaf-level)
    This intersection works appropriately on my primary stored hierarchy but not on any of my alternative hierarchies (also stored). It does work when I zoom to the leaf level in the alternate hierarchy but not any of the rollups.
    I had assumed the UDA on the shared member (in the alternate hierarchies) would acquire the UDA of its stored member. However, it doesn't appear to be working that way.
    Can anyone shed any light on this issue or suggest a different approach?
    Thanks,
    Barb

    We're using shared members in 11.1.1.2, in both dense and sparse dimensions. So, the good news is that it can be done. The bad news is that I'm not sure why you're experiencing this issue.
    Will you provide some additional details about the dimension where you're having this issue? Is it in a shared library, or a local library? Is there any chance that the prototype member (the original non-shared member) is set to "NeverShare"? Unfortunately, EPMA will allow users to select certain settings that cause problems downstream. (And sometimes it won't allow perfectly valid settings.)
    - Jake

  • Forward Referencing Shared Members and EIS

    I was wondering if there is a way to avoid the forward referencing shared members errors I get when creating an account hierarchy with EIS. I am creating the hierarchy automatically from a parent-child recursive table with no manual maintenance.Thanks in advance

    You have the option of "Deleting the Members First" when you run a Member Load.Only the outline is affected, the data itself remains unaffected until you run a calc. Then it will roll up properly.Good Luck,Tim

  • List of project members and business process owners

    Hi Experts,
    Can any one tell me where we can view list of Business Process Owners and list of Project members who are involved in a particular project.
    I know that we can view list of team member in authorisation view. is there any other view to view list all member who are all involved in a particulat project.
    Regards
    Sasikanth.Ch

    Try this
    IGPProcessInstance process = ... ;
    IGPBlock processTemlate = (IGPBlock) process.getTemplate() ;;
    for (int i = 0, len = processTemlate.getRoleInfoCount(); i < len; i++)
    IGPRoleInfo roleInfo = processTemlate.getRoleInfo(i) ;
    String techName = roleInfo.getRoleName() ;
    Enumeration userEnum = process.getUsersForRole(techName) ;
    //store users to some global collection or your table (IUser)

  • Shared Members Problem

    Hi,I want to start using the Shared Members option for one of my applications in EAS 7.1.0, but have amended the outline and loaded data but the Shared members are appearing in my data twice, therefore duplicating my sales figures in excel add-in, which isn't what I want, I just want the part to be added once, so almost as if one part doesn't get calculated. Can anyone help me with this?? Many ThanksSarah

    As Sreenivas said, change the consolidation to tilde.However, I would put a word of caution on what/how you do this.Typically, a hierarchy has one "primary" roll-up, where all the members are listed only once, and the hierarchy has an organized rollup. In addition, there may be "alternate" roll-ups. These hierarchies have internal consistencies that roll-up to a given point, but no further.What I mean by this is, that you should consider finding the 'root' location of the shared roll-ups, and mark it as non-aggregating (~), but the shared members themselves should aggregate to provide the alternate hierarchy it's own internal consistency.After working out the reason for the distinction between the main and alternate hierarchies, it becomes fairly obvious that your main roll-up will be 100% of your non-shared members, and the alternates may contain subsets.Example:Product has children "All Products", and "Discount Products", "All Products" will contain them all and aggregate to the Product root member. "Discount Products" contains a subset that aggregate up to itself, but it doesn't aggregate to the Product root member. You may have additional "alternate hierarchies", but only one will be your "full roll-up".Note: This example ignores the use of UDA's or attribute dimensions for doing this same thing, for illustrative purposes.-Doug

  • Shared Members

    Is there any way in which you can use a filter to look at just Shared Members and not the original members?we have looked at this and believe that it is not possible on the basis that whenever you drill down in Excel, you can see the values for the shared members and the original members as well.It would be great to confirm that the above is True, or even better, provide a solution to the problem.

    When you drill down from a parent member, you should be viewing the child members and if that is shared memebers then that is what you will see.The data value of the shared member and the origianl member is always the same. The roll ups will have differnet values. So I am not sure what you mean when you say the shared value and the origianl value are visible. Please clarify.Thanks.

  • Shared members' properties not flowing automatically

    Hi,
    We are developing hierarchies in Drm11.1.2.2
    Wherein we have primary members and also shared members in our hierarchy to be built on ...for the properties part let's say for ex I have description-lob as a local property that inherits a global property description-input ...note:values at global properties not to be changed...hence lob ...when the members are created as primary members with their respective properties... The shared members do not inherit the properties from the primary member... How do we get inherit it automatically... Note: description-lob is a overridden property... Please help me asap with your ideas...
    Thanks

    Hello Scorp,
    I've tried to understand and here's what i understood.. The Description-LOB is a defined Inheriting or probably a Overridable derived property.  Now taking each case differently -
    Note- The Shared members will not "Inherit" the values from their primaries unless they are among its descendants and which typically doesn't make sense from an alternate structure view.
    If it is a defined property it will not reflect on the Shared member automatically, if my memory serves me right the Leaf property is the only one which is common.
    Now having said that, the only possibility is that of a overridable derived property, now for that you need to put in a condition in your formula to check for Shared members separately, Check for the Core.SharedFlag_MDM  which is True for Shared members and False for Primaries you can do something like this.
    If(PropValue(Core.SharedFlag_MDM),
    NodePropValue(PropValue(Core.PrimaryName_MDM),Custom.YourProperty),
    PropValue(Custom.YourProperty))
    Let me know if I have deviated from your question.
    Thanks
    Denzz

  • Financial Reporting Studio - Suppress Shared Members During Entity Prompt

    I am trying to create a Financial Reporting Studio report where the entity members that are displayed as a prompt only reflect the entities the user has access to with only one occurrence in the list. I have tried the following scenarios with no luck.
    In Workspace, the Financial Reporting Preference, the Setup User POV option "Member Selection Displays" is set to "Only Members I Can Access" and not "All Members Regardless of Access".
    The Financial Report is set up so that the user is prompted for the Entity so they can select multiple entities to run the report.
    This works fine, except this is also displaying the shared members in the alternate hierarchies when responding to the Entity prompt.
    As part of Defining the prompt, I have included the main entity structure in the "Choices List" in hopes that the shared members wouldn't display as an option to select, but this ends up displaying all of the entities in the hierarchy overriding what is the Financial Reporting Preference (acts like "All Members Regardless of Access"). I have also tried the Union of "Suppress shared members" and "Same level as" a level zero entity, but I'm still seeing all of the members of the main entity hierarchy, rather than a list of entities the user has access to.
    Is there a way to display all of the entities only once that a user has access to during a prompt for a report? I would greatly appreciate any advice. Thanks in advance!!

    I don't think there's a native way to do this in HFR. How could it be done other than through creating a custom selection list? Okay, I guess that is one way but it hurts my brain to think about maintaining it unless it could maybe be done through IDESCENDANTS of 1 and 2.
    Here are two other thoughts:
    1) Write a report against the Planning (I could be wrong about you using Planning as you specify Essbase, but the question is in the Planning board) tables to get this information. I don't know how to do it, but I'm guessing with some SQL gyrations it should be possible.
    2) Stick an attribute against hierarchies 1 & 2 and report on them that way. You the designer already know that they are related. More maintenance on the front end, but a surefire way to get the member list out.
    Regards,
    Cameron Lackpour

  • Process mgmt on Shared members

    Hi All,
    Since our Base entity hieararchy did not setup to meet the Budget flow process, we are thinking of adding an alternative hieararchy that reflects the budget flow in the organization. But when i setup the alternative hieararchy and tries to setup process mgmt on these shared members they are not visible in Process mgmt.. it seems i need to create a dummy member (for each of the shared member) and then use it to setup workflow process.. any other ideas are welcome.
    Thanks,
    Praveen

    This is a planning forum, are you now saying your question only relates to essbase?
    If is planning related and you want more depth with access permissions you will have a look at expanding the filters, with planning the filters get recreated if they are selected durining a planning refresh, this would mean you need an extra process after a refresh to build in the extra filter functionality.
    Cheers
    John
    http://john-goodwin.blogspot.com/

  • DRM and Shared Members in Essbase & Planning

    Hi,
    Many years ago we implemented Razza and one of the difficulties we had was in handling shared members in Essbase and Planning applications. The workaround as I recall was to use a prefix in alternate hierarchies, and strip it out before exporting. But this did not allow for a single place to maintain a node. Is there a best practice for handling shared members in DRM?
    Thanks!

    DRM now supports shared members in the application. This application functionality used configurable suffixes. You can read about this in the DRM User Guide.
    This makes Essbase integration virtually seemless since Essbase will treat the first occurance of a member encountered during the dimension load process as the base member and any subsequent occurances of that member as shared members. Planning, however, requires shared members to be marked as such and thus depending on how the hierarchies are maintained in DRM and then exported, it is possible for the shared member to appear before the base member, which will cause Planning to raise an error. This can be accommodated with two pass loads and other techniques.
    Also note that this information could be dated as I haven't personally been on a project that fed hyperion Planning for a couple of years. Regards.

  • Screen Sharing and WindowServer processes using 35-45% of CPU!!

    I have recently relocated and reconfigured my Apple network and computers in the house :1) MacBook Air dual display MBA with 20" cinema screen in the office, and 2) and Mac Mini connected to a large LCD TV in the living room.
    The plan now is to use the MBA as a primary computer and connect via wireless screen sharing to the MM so that I can monitor that system, run more intensive apps, watch EyeTV, file server tasks, etc.
    But now this has increased CPU and fan activity on the MBA beyond what I would expect. The activity monitor indicates that the Screen Sharing and WindowServer processes are using combined between 35-45% of the CPU (screen share process is a constant 25%!!).
    This is not good, and I wonder if it will be fixed in a future release. Any ideas or suggestions on how to limit the impact of screen sharing on CPU?

    It seems to be running better with system update, and use of a faster computer (now using the higher end mac book air)

  • Difference between Consolidation Process and Calculation process

    Hello everybody,
    I need to understand what's the difference between the two process : consolidation && Calculation and why we apply consolidation only to the entity dimension?
    Thanks in advance.

    this is a basic concept.
    calculation is to calculate all the calculated data for a particular child entity. you right click on an entity and choose "calculate" and it performs calcs on that entity only. when the data is calculated, then it is ready to be consolidated to the parent entities. at this point your calculations have not changed the data in the parent entity, merely done the ground work so that the child entity has executed the Sub Calculate() rules and contains the correct adjusted results (numbers) based on the combination of the source input data, the journals, and the applied rules. the child entity calculation status changes to "OK" to show it is complete, and the parent entities calculation status will change to "CN" indicating a consolidation is required (the parent entity is said to be "impacted" by the change in the data to the child).
    then you right click on a parent entity and choose "consolidate" and it consolidates all the data from all the children of that parent to come up with the consolidated results of that parent entity. so the consolidation includes the translation, elimination, parent-level journals and calculation of the final contribution to the parent entity or whatever is written in the Sub Consolidate() rules if using custom rules. then the total of all the contributions is what is written to the data input level of the parent entity (<Entity Currency> value member). when the consolidation process has finished, the parent calculation status changes from "CN" to "OK".
    then you repeat the process further up the tree until you reach the top level parent entity.
    if you choose "consolidate" on a top level entity where the children have not yet been calculated, the children will be calculated first automatically, before the consolidation can start. if you add "write to file" rules to the rules file, to log the consolidation process to a file, you will begin to understand the order of operations. HFM merely provides both "calculate" and "consolidate" choices in the user interface, as a convenience to separate the two operations in those cases where only one or the other is desired to be performed. since the consolidation cannot proceed until the calculation is completed, a consolidate of a parent that contains not-yet-calculated child entities will launch a calculate of those child entities automatically first. if you have a parent that has many children, it is sometimes beneficial to do the calculate separately so you can do small portions of the entity at a time, and then only when all the calculates are complete, to go ahead and launch the consolidation of the parent.
    an explanation of what happens in the consolidation process step by step, is provided in the Oracle HFM documentation. you should also consider to attend the Oracle University courses ("Create and Manage Applications" and the "Create Rules" courses, before you fully understand the concepts of HFM and can market yourself to potential clients as a consultant or competent user.
    also there is at least one book available on the subject of HFM.
    please mark the thread as answered/helpful if you can understand the above explanation.

  • Duplicate Member Outline and Loading Shared Members

    I have an outline where I want to allow duplicate member names but in some cases I will need shared members. I am trying to build the outline parent child and I cannot get it to understand the fact that I want a shared member.
    Here is an example:
    [market],east
    [market],west
    [market],other
    [market].[east], nj
    [market].[east], ny
    [market].[west], ca
    [market].[west], lv
    [market].[other],[market].[west].[lv] <--- this should be shared
    [market].[other],ny <--- this should not be shared
    Does anyone know how to do this?

    If you would like to less the charecters and if you are retrieving the data using SQL, then you could using the Substr function to restrict the characters to 80 substr( string, start_position, [ length ] )

  • Shared members issue

    Hi to all,
    I've a Problem with the shared members in a excel spreadsheet. I need to see all members in a specific dimension (shared members included). using members selection dialog box, i'm using the view method "by generation name" and the output option Supress shared members (cleared) but the shared members are filtered in the results. Using by level name is the same result.
    could you help me?
    I'm usign essbase 9.0 and add in vs 9.0
    Thanks in advance

    Certainly sounds odd... did you check the preview to see if they show up there?
    I'm just thinking it might be a post processing issue, because I haven't heard of this being an issue before so if it is there may be some option setting that is tripping it up.
    Let us know if they show up in the preview -- and if you have a suitable way to test other outlines or dimensions with similar circumstances it might help to check the preview on them as well.

Maybe you are looking for