Spatial overlay queries involving tables with different spatial extents

We are using GeoMedia Professional 6.1 with an Oracle 10g database. For validating geometry, we use a standard minimum bounding rectangle (MBR) that is fairly tight to our city boundary. Some city departments are requesting that we extend the spatial limits to create a larger MBR for some new features. This will involve using a new SDO_DIMINFO array in the MDSYS.SDO_GEOM_METADATA_TABLE and creating new spatial indexes. It is our intention to leave the existing features "as-is" with the original MBR and spatial indexes. I have done some preliminary testing in GeoMedia and have not run into any issues when doing spatial queries involving features with different MBRs. Spatial intersections, spatial differences and spatial filters seem to complete in a reasonable amount of time, even with large data sets. Does anyone have any experience using different MBRs with Oracle spatial overlay queries? Are there any other potential issues we should be aware of when working with tables that are created with different spatial extents such as performance?

Luc ... Thank you for supplying the URL for Simon Greener’s website. This article supports information we already received from our GIS software provider.
With regards to your questions: One of the checks carried out in our “ValidateGeometry” procedure is to ensure that a new or modified geometry is within the bounding rectangle defined by the SDO_DIMINFO. An error is raised if the user tries to add a polygon that is well beyond the city boundary rather than within the prescribed city area. Currently, we do not use different MBR’s as layer extents (there are only a couple of exceptions). We are in the process of conducting system and performance testing to identify potential issues that may be encountered when tables created with expanded upper and lower bounds are used in downstream applications such as intranet/internet web maps. We are still trying to identify any potential “hotspots”.

Similar Messages

Joining two fact tables with different dimensions into single logical table

Hi Gurus,
I try to accomplish in Oracle Business Intelligence 11.1.1.3.0:
F1 (D1, D2 and D3)
F2 (D1 and D2 and D4)
And we want to build a report F1 F2 D1 D2 D3 D4 to have data for:
F1 that match only for D1-D2-D3
and data for
F2 that match only D1-D2-D4
all that in one row, so D3 and D4 are not common dimensions.
I can only do:
F3 (D1, D2)
F4 (D1, D2 and D4)
And report
F3 F4 D1,D2,D4 (all that in one row, and only D4 is not a common dimension)
Here is the very good example how to accomplish the scenario 1
http://108obiee.blogspot.com/2009/08/joining-two-fact-tables-with-different.html
But looks like it does not work in 11.1.1.3.0
I get
State: HY000. Code: 10058. [NQODBC] [SQL_STATE: HY000] [nQSError: 10058] A general error has occurred. [nQSError: 43113] Message returned from OBIS. [nQSError: 14025] No fact table exists at the requested level of detail: [,,Clients,,Day,ROI,,,,EW_Names,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]. (HY000)
I am sure I set up everything correctly as advised in the blog but it works with only one not a common dimension
Is it a bug in 11.1.1.3.0 or something?
Thanks,
Kate

Thanks for all your replies.
Actually, I've tried the solutions you guys mentioned. Generally speaking, the result should be displayed. However, my scenario is a little bit tricky.
table Y's figures are not the aggregation of table X for D dimension. Instead, table Y's figures include not only D dimension total, but also others (others do not mean A, B, C dimension). For example, table Y stores all food's figure, while table X stores only drink's figure. D dimension is only about drink's detail. In my scenario, other foods' figure is not provided.
So, even if I set D dimension to all/total for table X, table X's result is still not the same as table Y.
Indeed, table Y does not have a column key to join to D dimension's key. So, if I select D dimension and table Y's measures at the same time in BI Answer, result returns no data. Hence, I can't compare table X and table Y's results with selection of D dimension.
Is there any solution to solve this problem?
Edited by: TomChan on Jun 3, 2009 9:36 AM

Performance between two partitionned tables with different structure

Hi,
I would like if there is a difference between two partitionned tables with different structure in term of performance (access, query, insertions, updates ).
I explain myself in detail :
I have a table that stores one value every 10 minutes in a day (so we have 144 values (24*6) in the whole day), with the corresponding id.
Here is the structure :
| Table T1 |
+ id PK |
+ date PK |
+ sample1 |
+ sample2 |
+ ... |
+ sample144 |
The table is partionned on the column date, with a partionned every months. The primary key is based on the columns (id, date).
There is an additionnal index on the column (id) (is it useful ?).
I would like to know if it is better to have a table with just (id, date, value) , so for one row in the first table we'll have 144 rows in the future? table. The partition will already be on the columns (id, date) with the index associated.
What are the gains or loss in performance with this new structure ( access, DMLs , storage ) ?
I discuss with the Java developers and they say it is simpler to manage in their code.
Oracle version : Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.2.0.3.0 - 64bit Production
Thanks & Regards
From France
Oliver
Edited by: 998239 on 5 avr. 2013 01:59

I mean storage in tablespaces and datafiles on disk.
Can you justify please and give me concrete arguments why the two structures are equivalent ( except inserting data in T(id, date,value))
because i have to make a report.i didnt say any thing like
two structures are equivalent ( except inserting data in T(id, date,value)i said
About structure : TABLE1(id, date, value) is better than TABLE1(id, date, sample1, .... sample144)because
1) oracle has restriction for numbers of column. Ok you can have 144 columns now but for future if you must have more than 1000 columns , what will you do?
2) Restrictions on Table Compression (Table compression is not supported for tables with more than 255 columns.)
3) store same type values on diffrent columns is bad practise
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28318/schema.htm#i4383
i remember i seen Toms article about this but now i cant find it sorry ((( if i found i will post here

Create n tables with different number names

Hi guys, I work with SQL Server 2008 and OS Windows Server 2008 R2 64 bits. I have to create 10 tables with different names e.g. 'Image1', 'Image2', and so on. For this goal, I use a loop and concatenation. Here is the code:
DECLARE @i INT
DECLARE @v_table_n CHAR
SET @i=1
SET @v_table_n='Image'
WHILE (@i<=10)
BEGIN
    DECLARE @STR VARCHAR(100)
       SET @STR = 'CREATE TABLE SQL_DB_Filestream.dbo.Image1' + @v_table_n + CAST(@i AS VARCHAR(10)) + ' (
   [ID_RowFeatVec] INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
       [CF1] FLOAT,
   [CF2] FLOAT,
       [CF3] FLOAT
       EXECUTE @STR
    SET @i = @i + 1;
END
GO
As a result, an error message appears:
"The name 'CREATE TABLE SQL_DB_Filestream.dbo.Image1I1 (
    [ID_RowFeatVec] INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY' is not a valid identifier."
I have tried a lot of versions but it doesn't work.
What am I doing wrong?
Best wishes
SV_proj

>> I have to create 10 tables with different names e.g. 'Image1', 'Image2', and so on. For this goal, I use a loop and concatenation. Here is the code: <<
1) An SQL Programmer would write ten CREATE TABLE statements. Are you old enough to know about Rube Goldberg? He was a cartoonist who invented inanely complex device for simple task!
2) Ten identical tables is a huge design flaw. It is so awful I want to use it in one of my books. Tables are sets. A set is completed whole, or as Cantor said “a many that is treated as a one” (it sounds cool in German or Esperanto).
3) We hate loops in SQL. This is a declarative language. I will bet you have no idea what that means.
What you want to do is mimic a magnetic tape file system from the 1950's. We used to put a label on the tapes based on the date or a sequence number. Not a completed whole.
--CELKO-- Books in Celko Series for Morgan-Kaufmann Publishing: Analytics and OLAP in SQL / Data and Databases: Concepts in Practice Data / Measurements and Standards in SQL SQL for Smarties / SQL Programming Style / SQL Puzzles and Answers / Thinking
in Sets / Trees and Hierarchies in SQL

BI Answers - need 2 compound layouts with tables with different columns

Hi,
I need 2 tables in the same report with different columns displaying. Is this possible?
I wanted to put them in their own compound layout and call each one with a view selector,
but it seems impossible to create a 2nd table with different columns in the one report.
Each time I try and replace one of the columns in the 2nd table with a different column,
a message appears saying the deleted column will be deleted from all views.
Many thanks for anyone's help.
- Jenny

As per my knowledge - your requirement can be done with Pivot view but not with regular table view.
We dont have exclude column - functionality in table view.
Else, instead of creating in same report create the req. with 2 separ. reports but place them on single dashboard in 2 sep. sections.

How to compare two rows from two table with different data

how to compare two rows from two table with different data
e.g.
Table 1
ID   DESC
1     aaa
2     bbb
3     ccc
Table 2
ID   DESC
1     aaa
2     xxx
3     ccc
Result
2

Create
table tab1(ID
int ,DE char(10))
Create
table tab2(ID
int ,DE char(10))
Insert
into tab1 Values
(1,'aaa')
Insert
into tab1 Values
(2,'bbb')
Insert
into tab1 Values(3,'ccc')
Insert
into tab1 Values(4,'dfe')
Insert
into tab2 Values
(1,'aaa')
Insert
into tab2 Values
(2,'xx')
Insert
into tab2 Values(3,'ccc')
Insert
into tab2 Values(6,'wdr')
SELECT
tab1.ID,tab2.ID
As T2 from tab1
FULL
join tab2 on tab1.ID
= tab2.ID
WHERE
BINARY_CHECKSUM(tab1.ID,tab1.DE)
<> BINARY_CHECKSUM(tab2.ID,tab2.DE)
OR tab1.ID
IS NULL
OR
tab2.ID IS
NULL
ID column considered as a primary Key
Apart from different record,Above query populate missing record in both tables.
Result Set
ID ID
2 2
4 NULL
NULL 6
ganeshk

Many to many join table with different column names

Hi have a joint table with different column names as foreign keys in the joining
tables...
e.g. i have a many to many reltnshp btwn Table A and Table B ..and join table
C
both have a column called pk.
and the join table C has columns call fk1 and fk2
does cmd require the same column name in the join table as in the joining table?
are there any workarounds?
thanks

HI,
No, the foreign key column names in the join table do not have to match the primary
key names in the joined tables.
-thorick

Pass the internal table with different structures to the class module

Hi ,
I have created a class method to fill up the data in XML format. the method can be called from various programs with internal table with different structures. I want to pass it as dynamic How can I do that.
I tried to declare that as type any.
but not working.
regards,
Madhuri

Hi,
You could work with data reference.
Use GET REFERENCE OF itab INTO data_ref for passing the internal table to your method, and dereference it within the method with ASSIGN statement...
DATA: lr_data TYPE REF TO data.
GET REFERENCE OF itab INTO lr_data.
CALL METHOD meth EXPORTING pr_data = lr_data.
METHOD meth.
FIELD-SYMBOLS <fs> TYPE ANY TABLE
ASSIGN pr_data->* TO <fs>.
ENDMETHOD.
Kr,
Manu.

How to create a view on tables with different keys?

I have to create a View on:
Z3PVR: Transparent Table
BSEG: Cluster Table
CKIS: Transparent Table
BKPF: Transparent Table
RV61A: Structure
T001: Transparent Table
All the tables have different "Key Fields" and the structure has no "Key Fields". When i create the view, what do I mention in the "JOIN FIELDS" tab. and how do i create the view with the structure?
Please advise.

How to create a view on a Non-Transparent Tables.
how to create view?
HELP.. How to create a view with the tables with ALV

Two Fact tables with Different set of Dimension Tables

Here is my scenario:
I got two fact tables: X and Y (actually, they are the same tables, but with different level of data)
and four dimension tables: A, B, C, D
X joins relationship to all dimensions (A, B, C, D).
Y joins relationship to only A, B, C, but no D.
When I select dimension A, B and C together with fact tables X and Y in BI Answer, result is displayed and compared.
However, if I select dimension D together with fact tables X and Y, only data from fact table X is displayed. There is no result displayed for fact table Y. I know that this is because fact table Y does not join to dimension D.
If the above relationship unchanged, how can I display both X and Y's result in BI Answer when dimension D is selected?

Thanks for all your replies.
Actually, I've tried the solutions you guys mentioned. Generally speaking, the result should be displayed. However, my scenario is a little bit tricky.
table Y's figures are not the aggregation of table X for D dimension. Instead, table Y's figures include not only D dimension total, but also others (others do not mean A, B, C dimension). For example, table Y stores all food's figure, while table X stores only drink's figure. D dimension is only about drink's detail. In my scenario, other foods' figure is not provided.
So, even if I set D dimension to all/total for table X, table X's result is still not the same as table Y.
Indeed, table Y does not have a column key to join to D dimension's key. So, if I select D dimension and table Y's measures at the same time in BI Answer, result returns no data. Hence, I can't compare table X and table Y's results with selection of D dimension.
Is there any solution to solve this problem?
Edited by: TomChan on Jun 3, 2009 9:36 AM

How to handle Fact tables with different granularity in OBIEE 11g RPD

Hello Everyone,
I have got stuck here and need your help.
I have two fact tables (Say F1 and F2... F1 is containing data at month-level and F2 is containing data at day level) and one Date DIMENSION TABLE. Date_Code is the PK of Date dimension table.I need to use time-series functions also.
Can anyone tell me how to model this requirement in the RPD.
Can we use a single dimension table(Here Date dimension table) with two fact table of different grainularity? What would be the best way to implement this requirement?
Thanks in advance :)

Hi Veeravalli,
Thanks for your reply :)
Let me explain the problem in more detail. I have one Date dimension(Date_Code,Month_Code,Quarter_Code,Half_Year_Code,Year_Code). Here Date_Code is the PK.
In F1---->Date (Using Month_Code key)
F2-------->Date (Using Date_Code Key)
Level based hierarchy is there starting from Year to Date.Each level has PK defined and chronological key selected.
F1 has level set to Month and F2 has level set to Day.
Now if i am using ago() function on measure of F2 (having day level data) then it's working fine but if i am using ago() function on measure of F1...I am getting an error at Presentation service: Date_code must be projected for time-series functions.
So the whole issue is with time-series functions. As per my research...I think for time series the tables in the physical model containing the time dimension cannot join to other data sources, except at the most detailed level but here i am joining with F1(using Month_Code which is not the most detailed level).
So kindly let me know how to achieve this in rpd?

Two tables with different filter values base on a analysis

Hi guys,
let assume that I have a analysis with columns : group_id and sales.
Based on it I would like to create two tables : table1 where group_id =1 and table2 where group_id = 2.
Is OBIEE capable of doing it?
Regards,
Slavi

Hi Slavi,
You can do that in single analysis, but you need to have the group_id column two times.
That is, bring group_id_1, group_id_2 (same column), sales
Now in table 1,
bring group_id_1, sales
Then in selection steps for group_id_1 -> Select Members -> Action choose keep only -> choose the filter value 1
This will filter the table 1 with group_id 1
In table2 bring group_id_2, sales
Then do the same step for group_id_2 with value 2.
now in same report you have two reports with different filter.
If you want you can keep the same column name for both group_id columns, I just kept group_id_1, group_id_2 for easy reference.

How to join two columns between two tables with different column names

Hi
How i can join 2 columns with different names between the 2 tables.
Can any one please give solution for this.
Thanks
Manu

Hi,
basic understanding of joins:
If you want to join 2 tables there should be matching column w.r.t. data and it's data type. You need not to have same column names in both the tables...
so, find those columns which has got same values..

Tables with different-width columns

Whist creating a table with multiple rows and columns, I need some of the columns to be different widths on each row. I can do this easily in Word by simply selecting the cell and command-drag the vertical line at the left or right hand side.
When I do this in InDesign, the whole damn column moves. I do not want this.
Also - as in Word - I need to be able to calculate sums.
Why is none of this possible with such a powerful application like InDesign CC 2014? Seems like Microsoft Word kicks InDesign CC 2014's *** on this.

I do not want InDesign to work like Word, oh no. I just designed a 200 page book in InDesign - it was a breeze. I shudder at the thought of having to do that in Word. The table functions of the application are limited. Here's the thing, I want to be able to layout a specialised table/form with my specialised design tool and be able to specify the sizes of columns, cells and rows as I choose, and change on the fly if necessary. My screwdriver drives screws in - and back out again as I choose. I can slide an individual column divider one way but not the other. It's a bit like having an all singing-all dancing Swiss Army knife that doesn't have the corkscrew, and your out on a picnic with a nice bottle of red in your basket.
A guy from Adobe remote-shared my screen, telling me what I wanted to achieve was possible. I showed him using Word how easy it was. He tried and failed in InDesign and conceded that it was in fact not possible. He gave me a link to Adobe for a feature request!

Fact tables with different granularity

We currently have 3 dimensions (Site, Well, Date) and 2 fact tables (GasEngine, GasField), both having granularity of a day.
GasEngine is linked to Site and Date
GasField is linked to Site, Well and Date
We now have a requirement to make the GasEngine fact table have granularity of an hour but keep
GasField at a day.
We therefore must include a new Time dimension, which would only be linked to GasEngine.
Is it ok to have a DW with these two fact tables having different granularity?
And would we therefore require two separate cubes for querying this data?

Hi Rajendra and Visakh16,
Based on your input provided to this thread, I would like to ask a question just to fine-tune my knowledge regarding data modelling. In Darren’s case I guess his date dimension only store dimension records up to day level granularity. Now the requirement
is to make the “GasEngine” fact table to hold data granularity of an hour.
Now based on Rajendra’s input
“Yes, you can have. but why you need new time dimension, I recommend, make GasEngine fact to
hour granularity.”
How Darren could display data for each hour without having a time dimension attached to GasEngine fact table? With the existing date dimension he ONLY can display the aggregated data with the minimum granularity of day level.
Now anyone can modify the date dimension to hold time records which will complicate the date dimension totally. Instead why Darren cannot have a separate time dimension which hold ONLY time related data and have a timekey in GasEngine fact table and relate
those tables using the time key? This way isn’t Darren’s data model become more readable and simplified? As we provide another way of slicing and dicing data by using a time dimension I do not think Darren’s cube becomes a complex STAR schema.
I could be totally wrong therefore for the sake of knowledge for Darren and me I am asking the question from both of you.
Best regards…
Chandima Lakmal Fonseka

Spatial overlay queries involving tables with different spatial extents

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for