Forum Discussion

camagruder's avatar
camagruder
New Contributor III
3 years ago

Does the "In Use" tag impact Data Unit Size?

We are looking for ways to reduce the data unit size in one of our cubes in order to increase reporting performance without having to do a redesign.  We currently have +20k UD1's and +10k accounts in this cube and 16 years of historical data. 

Would updating the "In use" tag to false for inactive accounts and UD1's reduce the data unit size and help improve data pulls and reporting performance for current years?  We aren't able to completely remove these accounts/UD1's because we are going back 16 years for historical purposes.

Metadata
  • PFugereCSO's avatar
    PFugereCSO
    3 years ago

    Hi Christy,  

    As for zeros source, I would be just taking an educated guess.  But you are right to want to explore that.  Some people find the No-Data for zero settings create a situation where they feel they have to load zeros. Ive been guilty of this too, but it can be a problem.  A zero is not a NoData value.

     

    As for not disrupting the end users - It is always best practice to have at least two cubes - rarely would you only have one.  A detail and summary cube.  This allows to make an update like what you need here without impacting the end users.  If you only have one cube, then your options are getting limited.  With two cubes its easier to update the metadata for the parent cube.  IF you are working with RCS, they can help you.  I am happy to help too off this thread if you want to brainstorm design ideas.  

  • ChristianW's avatar
    ChristianW
    Valued Contributor
    3 years ago

    Data unit size is mainly related to data not metadata.

    If increasing the reporting performance is the only reason for your request, I would strongly advise to have a look at hybrid scenarios. If done correctly it can dramatically reduce the data unit size used for reporting without copying data on the database (just in memory).

     

    • camagruder's avatar
      camagruder
      New Contributor III
      3 years ago

      We currently have >900 users with >1k reports and who knows how many quickviews and spreadsheets so even going down the hybrid scenario route may be a difficult task because of the impact to so many users.  We may end of having to go down that route but I was looking for anything that would be seamless to users as a first step.

      • PFugereCSO's avatar
        PFugereCSO
        Contributor
        3 years ago

        So what you are describing is not an uncommon design issue on large applications, and it is covered in the Data Processing and Performance Guide, that is posted on this forum.  You have a couple options before you will have to fix the design.  I would determine if you have a high number of "zero and near zero data" in your application.  That would need to be found, identify how it got there and removed.  Next you will need to set up the application for better use of dimension extensibility.  If you don't do look at the dimensions, other steps will either not work well or confuse the users more.

         

        After that -  

        1) You could create a Hybrid Scenario.  This will create summary data at parent entities, so users will need to use the new scenario for reporting an analysis, and understand how to drill to the detail.

        2) You could summarize via consolidation rules - There is not a new scenario, but rules of this complexity present different challenges.

        If you find this is not enough, and you need to go down the redesign path, you will need to plan on multiple cubes and deeper dimensions (dimensions, not members)