[Mondrian] Aggregate tables and distinct-count
Pedro Alves
pmgalves at gmail.com
Mon Jan 14 13:33:38 EST 2013
I'm not so sure it was using the agg tables. It did one query on the agg
table and then went to do a distinct-count on the fact table again.
I'm removing the uniqueMembers on the inferior levels (even if they are
unique). This allows me not to use (un)collapsed levels. A hack, but
I'll try to see where it leads to
-pedro
On 01/14/2013 05:41 PM, Luc Boudreau wrote:
>
> Depends on the structure of your dimension table. If you create a 1:N
> relation by using non-collapsed levels, then yeah, you'll have wrong
> results returning.
>
> Luc
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Pedro Alves <pmgalves at gmail.com
> <mailto:pmgalves at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The agg has one single (non-collapsed) level, and this is a star schema.
> Could I get into troubles?
>
>
>
> On 01/14/2013 05:14 PM, Luc Boudreau wrote:
> > Be careful with the non-collapsed dimensions. This feature needs the
> > tables to be in a snowflake form. If the dimension table is a single
> > table and you join on the non-last level, you will get a
> cartesian product.
> >
> > Luc
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Pedro Alves <pmgalves at gmail.com
> <mailto:pmgalves at gmail.com>
> > <mailto:pmgalves at gmail.com <mailto:pmgalves at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > IT IS WORKING!
> >
> >
> > However, I had to skip the first level of a hierarchy,
> marking the
> > second level as collapsed= false.. something I've never used
> before and
> > seems to be exactly for this :p
> >
> >
> >
> > -pedro
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 01/14/2013 05:01 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> > > yes, it should be used.
> > >
> > > furthermore, mondrian knows that it is safe to roll up any
> > attributes that are functionally dependent on the measure column.
> > (e.g. if you have computed count(distinct customer_id), and
> you have
> > in the agg table the distinct count for male and female
> customers in
> > each state, you can compute the number of distinct customers
> in each
> > state by adding the distinct males and females.)
> > >
> > > Julian
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jan 14, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Pedro Alves
> <pmgalves at gmail.com <mailto:pmgalves at gmail.com>
> > <mailto:pmgalves at gmail.com <mailto:pmgalves at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I know we can't aggregate distinct-count measures like we do
> > with the
> > >> others.
> > >>
> > >> But if a query matches a specific aggregation table's bitkey,
> > >> couldn't/shuoldn't it be used?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -pedro
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Mondrian mailing list
> > >> Mondrian at pentaho.org <mailto:Mondrian at pentaho.org>
> <mailto:Mondrian at pentaho.org <mailto:Mondrian at pentaho.org>>
> > >> http://lists.pentaho.org/mailman/listinfo/mondrian
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Mondrian mailing list
> > > Mondrian at pentaho.org <mailto:Mondrian at pentaho.org>
> <mailto:Mondrian at pentaho.org <mailto:Mondrian at pentaho.org>>
> > > http://lists.pentaho.org/mailman/listinfo/mondrian
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mondrian mailing list
> > Mondrian at pentaho.org <mailto:Mondrian at pentaho.org>
> <mailto:Mondrian at pentaho.org <mailto:Mondrian at pentaho.org>>
> > http://lists.pentaho.org/mailman/listinfo/mondrian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mondrian mailing list
> > Mondrian at pentaho.org <mailto:Mondrian at pentaho.org>
> > http://lists.pentaho.org/mailman/listinfo/mondrian
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Mondrian mailing list
> Mondrian at pentaho.org <mailto:Mondrian at pentaho.org>
> http://lists.pentaho.org/mailman/listinfo/mondrian
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mondrian mailing list
> Mondrian at pentaho.org
> http://lists.pentaho.org/mailman/listinfo/mondrian
>
More information about the Mondrian
mailing list