Chris Webb's BI Blog

Analysis Services, MDX, PowerPivot, DAX and anything BI-related

Attribute Relationships article

with 5 comments

I check Richard Tkachuk’s site every few weeks for new material (Richard, if you’re reading, any chance you could implement an RSS feed?) and have just noticed he’s put up a great article that explains the behaviour of attribute relationships in a lot of detail; there also seems to be a new version of his CellsetGrid control. His site is here:
 
The MDX Performance tips article, also updated, is definitely worth a read too. One thing I’ve been wondering about recently to do with the whole multiple measure groups vs multiple cubes issue (see Teo’s post on this here http://prologika.com/CS/blogs/blog/archive/2006/06/28/1331.aspx for more details) is whether using the VALIDMEASURE function, which Richard suggests is good for performance, is going to give as good performance as splitting a cube with multiple measure groups up into multiple cubes that use linked measure groups. Anyone got any thoughts?

Written by Chris Webb

September 11, 2006 at 7:51 am

Posted in On the internet

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Hi Chris
     
    A while ago I actually tried to get a comment from Richard on the whole Validmeasure() vs. IgnoreUnrelatedDimensions issue. He didn\’t get back to me though, and I can\’t quite figure out if what he writes actually means that using the Validmeasure() function will give better performance if IgnoreUnrelatedDimensions is set to true. After all, if you want the "validmeasure behavior" and you don\’t set IgnoreUnrelatedDimensions to true, you would have to create a calculated member for each of the measures.

    Michael

    September 12, 2006 at 7:10 am

  2. In Richard\’s "Attribute Relationships article" mentioned above ,A section named "Explicit vs Implicit Overwrite" is showed.But "Who overwrite who" and "in which order " are not resolved.For example, in the context of a attribute relationship which can be shown as "product–>subcategory–>category–>bigcategory",MDX(1)\’s result is different from MDX(2).MDX(1):select {([Measures].[Amount] ,[Product].[category].[vehicle] ) , ([Measures].[Amount] ,[Product].[category].[fruit] ) , } on columns , ([Product].[Subcategory].[car] ) on rowsfrom [MDXTEST]
    MDX(2):select {([Measures].[Amount] ,[Product].[category].[vehicle] ) , ([Measures].[Amount] ,[Product].[category].[fruit] ) , } on columns from [MDXTEST]WHERE([Product].[Subcategory].[car] )
    Expecting from U!3X.

    September 15, 2006 at 10:38 am

  3. Yes, this particular form of query is really confusing. It was discussed recently on the MSDN Forum:http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=555394&SiteID=1
    …and according to Richard this behaviour will change in SP2.

    Chris

    September 19, 2006 at 6:38 am

  4. Hi Chris
    Do you perhaps have a copy of the CellsetGrid binaries and source code. I see Richards website is no longer in existence.

    Grubby

    January 12, 2011 at 7:47 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,302 other followers

%d bloggers like this: