Shared members and dynamic calc

Question

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

Answer 1

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