You are not logged in.

Limit of consolidation levels

Dear visitor, welcome to Palo Community Forum. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

ratio

Trainee

  • "ratio" started this thread

Posts: 3

Date of registration: Oct 31st 2011

  • Send private message

1

Tuesday, January 24th 2012, 3:46pm

Limit of consolidation levels

Hi,

I'm wondering if there is a maximum limit of consolidation levels in PALO. Could somebody, please, describe the impact of consolidations in dimensional structure to the performance of Cube data retrievals? Dimensions in PALO seem to be stored in some kind of separate "cube" or "storage". So aggregations through several consolidation levels have to be calculated on the fly each time, the data retrieval is executed, right? If some (basic) nodes are associated with different consolidations of same level (parallel hirarchies), is there any way to have some influence to the way, aggregations are done? (I'm thinking of aggregation of unique (basic) nodes only, or aggregate parallel consolidated nodes multiple times; NOT thinking of different weights/factors in consolidations)

Thanks in advance

ratio

tish1

Sage

Posts: 762

Date of registration: Jul 13th 2009

Location: Vienna / Austria

Occupation: Senior Consultant @ Vector SW DV GmbH

  • Send private message

2

Tuesday, January 24th 2012, 4:58pm

Hi.

It's generally better to have fewer consolidations in your dimension. So if you have time dimension with al level months aggregating days, then your year should be the sum of your months and not your days.
When talking about parallel hierarchies that means you should reuse your consolidations whenever possible.

Regards.
Robert Tischler
Senior Consultant Vector SW DV GmbH

tomok

Intermediate

Posts: 11

Date of registration: Dec 8th 2011

  • Send private message

3

Tuesday, January 24th 2012, 6:47pm

As a follow on question to this thread, when building a Time dimension is it better to build the YTDs separately or create then in a building block fashion? For example, Jan_YTD = Jan; Feb_YTD = Jan_YTD + Feb; Mar_YTD = Feb_YTD + Mar VERSUS Jan_YTD = Jan; Feb_YTD = Jan + Feb; Mar_YTD = Jan + Feb + Mar. When I say better I am talking about calc performance times, not usability.

h_decker

Sage

  • "h_decker" is male

Posts: 763

Date of registration: Oct 26th 2005

Location: Cologne, Germany

  • Send private message

4

Wednesday, January 25th 2012, 10:03am

Hi,
I think you get better performance using

Jan_YTD = Jan;
Feb_YTD = Jan + Feb;
Mar_YTD = Jan + Feb + Mar.

especially when you work with rules.



Holger

Similar threads

Used tags

consolidation level limit

Rate this thread