Disadvantages in using cube partitions

Hello,
Could anyone tell me if there are any disadvantages in using partitions
in cubes ?
Thanks
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
1) they are an Enterprise Edition feature, thus they involve additional
upfront costs.
2) they are more difficult to maintain -- see the SSAS Operations Guide at:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../anservog.mspx
You will see that there are lots of interesting "gotchas" if you don't
maintain the data slice, etc. So they involve more administrative overhead.
However, personally I feel that their benefits more than out-weigh the
costs. See the SSAS Performance Guide for additional information on the
benefits:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../ansvcspg.mspx
There is also an excellent chapter on the importance of partitioning in the
SQL Server 2000 Resource Kit.
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"anonymous red" <anonymousrd@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OCj6zjDuEHA.3320@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> Could anyone tell me if there are any disadvantages in using partitions
> in cubes ?
> Thanks
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||In fact I have a cube of size 100 MB with about 8 dimensions that
contains data for 24 months. There are only isolated reports that do not
use the whole 24 months data altogether. In fact, the time taken for the
processing of the cube or the complexity of development does not matter
much for my case: the main focus is access time on reports. What I would
like to know is that how I can have an idea of how much the majority of
my reports (which are based on the 24 months altogether) will suffer if
I start managing partitions in my cube based on the time dimension.
Basically, how significant is the overhead for a query consuming data
across all the members of a dimension when the cube bears N partitions
based on that dimension itself as compared to a single partition or to
how many number of partitions per MB of a cube does this overhead become
an issue.
I would be most grateful if you could provide me with some information
pertaining to the above issues.
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||100MB is so small that I doubt if you will see any real advantage or
disadvantage of partitioning. If it was 100GB then we'd have a worthwhile
discussion, but 100MB is just too small to see anything.
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"anonymous red" <anonymousrd@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O$%23$nbpuEHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> In fact I have a cube of size 100 MB with about 8 dimensions that
> contains data for 24 months. There are only isolated reports that do not
> use the whole 24 months data altogether. In fact, the time taken for the
> processing of the cube or the complexity of development does not matter
> much for my case: the main focus is access time on reports. What I would
> like to know is that how I can have an idea of how much the majority of
> my reports (which are based on the 24 months altogether) will suffer if
> I start managing partitions in my cube based on the time dimension.
> Basically, how significant is the overhead for a query consuming data
> across all the members of a dimension when the cube bears N partitions
> based on that dimension itself as compared to a single partition or to
> how many number of partitions per MB of a cube does this overhead become
> an issue.
>
> I would be most grateful if you could provide me with some information
> pertaining to the above issues.
>
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

Disadvantages in using cube partitions

Hello,
Could anyone tell me if there are any disadvantages in using partitions
in cubes ?
Thanks
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!1) they are an Enterprise Edition feature, thus they involve additional
upfront costs.
2) they are more difficult to maintain -- see the SSAS Operations Guide at:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...n/anservog.mspx
You will see that there are lots of interesting "gotchas" if you don't
maintain the data slice, etc. So they involve more administrative overhead.
However, personally I feel that their benefits more than out-weigh the
costs. See the SSAS Performance Guide for additional information on the
benefits:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...n/ansvcspg.mspx
There is also an excellent chapter on the importance of partitioning in the
SQL Server 2000 Resource Kit.
--
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"anonymous red" <anonymousrd@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OCj6zjDuEHA.3320@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> Could anyone tell me if there are any disadvantages in using partitions
> in cubes ?
> Thanks
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||In fact I have a cube of size 100 MB with about 8 dimensions that
contains data for 24 months. There are only isolated reports that do not
use the whole 24 months data altogether. In fact, the time taken for the
processing of the cube or the complexity of development does not matter
much for my case: the main focus is access time on reports. What I would
like to know is that how I can have an idea of how much the majority of
my reports (which are based on the 24 months altogether) will suffer if
I start managing partitions in my cube based on the time dimension.
Basically, how significant is the overhead for a query consuming data
across all the members of a dimension when the cube bears N partitions
based on that dimension itself as compared to a single partition or to
how many number of partitions per MB of a cube does this overhead become
an issue.
I would be most grateful if you could provide me with some information
pertaining to the above issues.
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||100MB is so small that I doubt if you will see any real advantage or
disadvantage of partitioning. If it was 100GB then we'd have a worthwhile
discussion, but 100MB is just too small to see anything.
--
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"anonymous red" <anonymousrd@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O$%23$nbpuEHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> In fact I have a cube of size 100 MB with about 8 dimensions that
> contains data for 24 months. There are only isolated reports that do not
> use the whole 24 months data altogether. In fact, the time taken for the
> processing of the cube or the complexity of development does not matter
> much for my case: the main focus is access time on reports. What I would
> like to know is that how I can have an idea of how much the majority of
> my reports (which are based on the 24 months altogether) will suffer if
> I start managing partitions in my cube based on the time dimension.
> Basically, how significant is the overhead for a query consuming data
> across all the members of a dimension when the cube bears N partitions
> based on that dimension itself as compared to a single partition or to
> how many number of partitions per MB of a cube does this overhead become
> an issue.
>
> I would be most grateful if you could provide me with some information
> pertaining to the above issues.
>
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

Disable Totals in Cube Browser

Hi there,

Does anyone know of a way to disable the subtotal column in Analysis Services 2005 cube browser?

Dave

Unfortunately, I don't think you can turn totals off. Is there a particular reason why you want to (keeping in mind that the cube browser in BI Dev Studio and in SSMS are really only for developer/administrator use)?

Dave Fackler

Disable the "All" option in a parameter

Does anyone know how to disable the option "All" in a parameter which is in a 2005 reporting Services Report based on a 2005 AS Cube?

Thanks in advance,

Pieter

The only way I found, is to build another dataset based on sql query returning the same data.
Regards
Ayzan
|||

Thanks for your reply

This is not a good option because the options given in the parameter have to be limited by the role which the cube user is in.

But thanks anyway.

Pieter

|||

If your roles are correctly set, the "All" option will displays informations for all the items your user can access.

Regards

Ayzan

|||

Yes that is correct, but it does not give me the solution for my problem.

From Microsoft I got this information: "The <Select All> option in the parameter drop down is only a UI item. This will be removed with the SP1 release. "

So 'll wait for the SP I guess!

Thanks for your help!

disable grand totals for calculated measure.

I have measure in cube. Grand total for that measure need not be calculated & displayed..should be disabled.

How can i do this.

Can any one please tell me

Thanks in adv

Not sure what you mean by 'disabled', but you can always do something like that:

CREATE MyCalcMeasure = <expr>;

(MyCalcMeasure, Root()) = "DISABLED";

HTH,

Mosha (http://www.mosha.com/msolap)