several "logical joins" between a fact table and a dimension table

Similar Questions

• Help! Logical physical Table table - imported as fact table

  I am trying to create a logical table. When I drag the alias of the physical layer in the MDB, logic is created with the sign #. I think that it indicates as a fact table. I can't create a logical dimension of this table. How can I make the table come in a logic instead of a fact?

  Thank you for your help.

  1 > drag the physical Table in MDB. It will create a logical fact table in MDB Test for example.

  2 > duplicate this logical fact table. Another fact logical Test #1 table will be created.

  3 > select Test / Test No. 1 logical tables, and then right-click and select model for Business diagram.

  4 > create a new logical join between the Test and the Test #1 in MDB. Make sure that this Test: Test #1 cardinality is 1:M.

  5 > This will make the Test as a logical dimension table. Double-click the logical size Test table, go to the tab key and create a primary key.

• Limit the rows of the fact Table by using a table Dim - 10 g

  Hello
  
  I'm having some trouble trying to restrict the result to a fact table using a Dim picture (assume that the example below).
  
  -----DIM A-------------------------------FACT B--------------
  ID-Code - Id_Date - Id_Dim - value
  1---ABCD---01-01-2011---1---10
  2---XYZ---02-01-2011---2---20
  3---RST---03-01-2011---1---30
  ----------------------------------04-01-2011-------3------------40
  
  I want to show only the rows where Dim.Code = 'ABCD '. I know on the MDB, I choose the LTS of the fact table and on the content tab, on where clause insert: Dim.Id = 1, but I don't want to be limited by Dim.Id, I want to limit by Dim.Code and who cannot do this way.
  
  What I did on the LTS of the fact table, on the tab general got the fact Table on the mapped tables and I added the table Dim doing a join internal between the fact Table and the Table Dim. This way when I go to the content tab, I can do: Dim.Code = "ABCD" because the tables are attached now.
  
  Is it bad to do? Is there a better way to solve this problem?
  
  Before ask you I can't do it directly on the table of the Sun because this chart Dim is used in other Tables of facts. Creates an alias for the Table Dim and limit there the way forward?
  
  I hope that I was clear, thank you

  The way you do it is correct. If you have only one or two measures, then you could also do it using logical columns with the filter function.

  table of facts, for example:
  value = (unfiltered, do not show in the layer close)
  Value of ABCD = (filter (value using dim code = "ABCD"))

  Then you can expand this without having to create a table of facts for each variation:
  value = (unfiltered, do not show in the layer close)
  Value of ABCD = (filter (value using dim code = "ABCD"))
  Value of XYZ = (filter (value using dim code = "XYZ"))
  First value = (filter (value using dim code = "RST"))

  etc. Contrary to the statements of case, it pushes the return filter logic to the database (you get a where clause clause). Kind regards

  Robert

• A facts table

  I have only one table in "Business model"? I try to do, but without success. I get the error message "logical table... not adhering to any other logical table. Could someone explain to me why can't have only one table?
  
  Thank you

  1. create an alias of the table in the physical layer.
  2. Add a physical join between alias and existing table on primary key.
  3. Add the alias in the mapping layer and business model.
  4. Add a complex join between the two tables in the MDB layer.
  5 use only the columns of the table of facts in the presentation layer.

  Kind regards
  Stijn

• Dimension table is associated with N number of fact tables

  Salvation by the Expert,
  
  In the case of a fact table star schema is associated with the N dimension tables, it is possible to join a table of size N with the number of tables of facts... Please let my know your suggestion...
  
  
  Thank you to
  
  Harish

  Hello

  Yes, it's quite possible. A dimension can join the many fact table. For ex: temporal dimension and w_employee_d are classic examples of this behavior.

  Kind regards
  Sandeep

• Several foreign key joins between two tables

  Hello
  
  I have a question about the creation of a repository.
  
  I have a date and a fact dimension. The fact table has about 10 columns in foreign key to the date Dimension.
  
  In this case I should create 10 aliases to create joins in the physical layer and MDB or y at - it another way to handle this situation.
  
  I ask this question because 10 aliases can get very confusing for me at the later stage of time when creating reports.
  
  With the help of OBIEE 10.1.3

  If you want to see in the industry as
  End date, start date, date etc. nearby
  you need to create 10 aliases for this purpose in the physical layer, make them drag in MDB and model, and then drag to the area of topic

  Score pls correct/good

• In answers am see "Folder is empty" for fact of logic and the Dimension Table

  Hi all
  
  Working OBIEE answers, suddenly when I clicked on the fact table logical he showed me that 'the folder is empty. I restarted all services and then tried shows always the same for the tables of Dimension and fact but logic am able to see all my reports in the files shared. I rebooted the machine too but no change. Please, help me to solve this problem.
  
  Thanks in advance.
  
  Kind regards
  Rajkumar.

  First, follow the label of the forum:
  http://forums.Oracle.com/forums/Ann.jspa?annID=939
  React or mark as answer the message given by the user.

  And for your question, you must check the newspaper for a catalogue of possible corruption:
  OracleBIData_Home\web\log\sawlog0.log

• Several joins between records

  Hi gurus,
  
  I have a fact table that contains several fields of candidate that can be attached to a lookup table
  
  2 folders
  fact_table
  lookup_table1
  
  2 joins are possible between two folders
  fact_table.code_combination_id-> lookup_table1.code_combination_id
  fact_table.accrual_code_combination_id-> lookup_table1.code_combination_id
  
  When I try to create a new workbook and include the fields of the fact table, and then include the fields of the table of correspondence he asks me to choose the join.
  
  If I then want to add fields based on the second join, it do not ask me what join to use in the future. He seems to assume that the first join is always between two records for the report. I know that I can create another folder using the same table and move one of the existing joints of the current folder to the new folder. Am I missing something or is this the only way to go?
  
  Kind regards
  
  John

  Hi John,.

  Interesting question. This is how we solved in my last job.

  Created files:

  Fact table: AR's

  Search folder: combination of Code search
  Search folder: search for combination of Code of accumulation

  Then join AR made in each search folder. Generally, point the search folder on the AR folder in creating joins. Discoverer, prefer this direction. As a combination of additional code types are referenced, add additional code combination files. All of these files come from the same table. The only thing that is different is the column joined actually AR.

  So, in the end, your knuckles would be:
  Code combination Lookup.code_combination_id-> AR Fact.code_combination_id
  Accrual Code combination Lookup.code_combination_id-> AR Fact.accrual_code_combination_id

  I hope this helps.

  Kind regards
  Nancy

• How to create a logical fact table in a layer MDB?

  Hello
  
  I have 3 Dimension table - 2 are in a schema and the last is another schema. Using this 3 dimension tables, I need to create a logical fact table.
  So, my question is if we can create this table made by joining these 3 dimension table that are 2 different schema s?
  
  Thank you

  Hi Kuldip,
  Business is never a problem.

  Presentation layer is used to group similar business lines tables.
  It's just for users to understand or requirrment.

  You can use different domain tables to create a report. However the MDB and the physical joins is given in the tables to the RPD. It is compulsory to join tables in MDB layer and the physical layer to be used in the analysis.

  Hope that clarifies.

  A course if you think perticular table is used in the object anaother are, so you must add this table to the domain of the RPD. (Which makes sense)

  Mark if it is correct,

  Bachelot

• Add a simple table without one logical join to another table (OBIEE 10 g)

  Sometimes I want to just show a simple table without a logical join to another table in the repository. However, every time I move the layer Business model and mapping and an audit of overall coherence, he tells me that he has a logical join and I am forced to create another table to join her. Creating a dimension-fact relationship. There are times where I need this relationship and I want to just display some data. Is anyway to circumvent this?
  
  Thanks in advance!

  Yes, you must create a join. You can't take one table to MDB layer. You can create an alias for the table. Join this alias and the base through any common column table and take the two tables in MDB and table you want to the presentation layer.

  Another way is to create a view in the physical layer. Write a select statement as

  Select Table primary_key

  Where primary_key is the primary key of the base table. Join the base table of view ith and repeat the steps defined for the Alias.

  Kind regards
  Sandeep

• How to avoid the stalemate between count with all and several calls from an EP getBackingMapEntry...

  We have a processor input, which initiates a transaction lite by calling getBackingMapEntry on several similar entries.  The same cache distributed these similar entries of accommodation also simultaneously services count with all call and we often a blocking scenario comes from the fact that the count with all call trying to access/key in the same cache block - but in a different sequence - date entry processor accessed (for example, the European Parliament access to similar input 1 then similar input 2 while the count with all attempts to block the same but entries in sequence 2) then the entry 1).  The obvious solution is to change the sequence entry processor accesses these entries to match the sequence used by the count with all operation, but we do not know what sequence consistency applies to operations NamedCache.getAll.  Anyone know?  We believe that we excluded (e.g., consistency does not consider wrt the count with all access sequence) the following:

  • The sequence in an ordered collection of keys such as a list that is passed as an argument to count with all operation
  • The hash code of the key value
  • Any use of Comparable on the keys

  We use 3.7.1 consistency where it varies between 3.7.1 and 12 c.

  Thanks in advance.

  We've thought of it (always happens shortly after the publication on a support site).  If anyone is curious, it seems that the binary class implements Comparable and that consistency sorts instance converted by binary key and access the Scriptures based on this order sorted.  If the entry processor converts the keys to binary instances, sorts and accessed in sorted order, there is no potential blocking (of our observations, at least).  It would be nice if Oracle should document this that people better understand how to write safe concurrent code.

• Create a join between a column of type DATE and DATETIME RPD

  Hello

  In my DR. I have a fact table with a DATE column, which also contains a component "hour". The physical layer shows this as a DATETIME column that to this DAY, I've changed since I'm only interested in the part of the date.

  When I join it an alias of my Date dimension, the generated sql physics is similar to:

  DIM_DATE. DATE = FACT_A.FINISH_DATE

  What I really want is:

  DIM_DATE. DATE = TRUNC (FACT_A.FINISH_DATE)

  
  

  How can I achieve this at the level of the RPD? Yes, I can add a new column to the table of DW with truncated value, but I want to know why even though I chose the DATE as the type of data to the RPD, the created join does not have a trunk.

  
  

  Thank you

  
  

  Manish
  

  The physical layer shows this as a DATETIME column that to DATE, I have changed since I was only interested in the part of date.

  N ° bad idea. The physical layer of the RPD should show what the physical source. So if it isn't a DATE, don't pretend OBIEE is it. For the exact reason that you now - tap you are pregnant OBIEE to write some SQL magic to cast the data type, without even say things which is the original type. OBIEE will not interrogate the metadata in order to check the data types in the source, it will rely on what you tell it in the physical layer.

  How can I achieve this at the level of the RPD?

  You could use an inline view in the physical layer and make your trunc here I guess. Better, as you've already identified, is to store the date as a date if this is going to be a key column to reach.

  I want to know why even though I chose the DATE as the type of data to the RPD, the created join is not a trunk.

  See above. OBIEE does not know it is a DATETIME value, then why would he do a TRUNK?

• Link between ZX tax tables and gl_code_combinations table in R12

  Hi all

  I am new to Oracle Applications. We are reclassification of EBS 11i to R12.1.3. In this document, ar_vat_tax is old. I know that his replacement is ZX_rates_b table. But in 11i, they are connected using

  ar_vat_tax.tax_account_id = gl_code_combinations.code_combination_id

  Now I'm not able to find the join between the zx and gl_code_combinations tax tables. Can someone help please how to bind these ZX tax table to gl_code_combinations?

  Kind regards

  Patricia K.

  Solved the problem.

  There is a table called ZX_ACCOUNTS. Use the column tax_account_ccid in it. Link ZX_ACCOUNTS. tax_account_entity_id to ZX_RATES_B. tax_rate_id.

  Kind regards

  Patricia K.

• Join between PAY_GRADE_RULES_F and BEN_CWB_PERSON_RATES

  Hi Experts,
  I'm working on the module of work remuneration and creating custom ETL based on some sources eBS bench.
  Can anyone let me know the joins between the tables: PAY_GRADE_RULES_F and BEN_CWB_PERSON_RATES?
  
  Thank you
  Anamika

  Hi med.

  I would start here; http://ETRM.Oracle.com

  Good luck

  Daan Bakboord
  http://obibb.WordPress.com

• Difference between an XMLType table and one table with an XMLType column?

  Hi all
  
  Still trying to get my mind on all that XML stuff.
  
  Can someone explain briefly the difference between:

  create table this_is_xmltype_tab of xmltype;

  and

  create table this_is_tab_w_xmltpe_col(id number, document xmltype);

  What are the advantages and disadvantages of each solution? How are they really different?
  
  Thank you
  
  -Mark

  Sorry Mark, as far as I know it is not a real difference despite the fact that you can use the table with the column (ID), probably more effective for document-focused while driving the query via the ID column and anything else I can think off automatically about XMLType contra XMLType table columns is that (as far as I KNOW) you can not use a column of XMLType to shred the data into it via WebDAV o FTP. But then again I never really tried to do an XMLType column-based. Alternatives, for example, a binary XML column begins with a column of $ sys_nc_oid which is indexed, so in principle you shouldn't need an ID (number) column that has an index (a read also on http://www.liberidu.com/blog/?p=494). If there has been non-null that you could use this index for document oriented applications.