how do i join a dimension on itself? i'm pretty sure this isnt really how MDX is supposed to work, but I've run into a case where i'm hoping this can be done in MDX. i'll try to simplify as much as possible. if my Customer dimension contains these attributes:
[Customer]:
- [FullName]
- [ID]
- [ParentID]
Is it possible to have a query return a customer's FullName, ID, and FullName of the ParentID.
Example with values:
FullName, ID, ParentID
Jim, 1, 1
Jane, 2, 1
A query on ID=2 getting (FullName, ID, FullName of ParentID) should return: (Jane, 2, Jim)
When i add a dimension to the cube dimension without any relation in my dimension usage to any measure group my units are going down.However when i remove the dimension from the cube am getting the correct values.
Need some help building a query that does the following :
I have 2 Time Dimensions ; Time (Transdate) and ClosedDate (ClosedDate)
In my report/query, if [Time].CurrentMember = [Time].[YMD].[YMD].[2006].[200610].[20061031] I want to FILTER out all ClosedDate < [ClosedDate].[YMD].[YMD].[2006].[200610].[20061031]
Both Time Dimensions are Year -> Month -> Day and have the same Members.
I have every option available, using calculated Members and/or Measures to do this.
The report I'm creating is Aging of Receivables : Balance / 30 days / 60 days / etc.. But for the Aging, I need to filter like explained above.
I was writing a query using both left outer join and inner join. And the query was ....
SELECT Â Â Â Â Â Â Â S.companyname AS supplier, S.country,P.productid, P.productname, P.unitprice,C.categoryname FROM Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Production.Suppliers AS S LEFT OUTER JOIN Â Â Â Â Â Â (Production.Products AS P Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â INNER JOIN Production.Categories AS C
[code]....
However ,the result that i got was correct.But when i did the same query using the left outer join in both the cases
i.e..
SELECT Â Â Â Â Â Â Â S.companyname AS supplier, S.country,P.productid, P.productname, P.unitprice,C.categoryname FROM Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Production.Suppliers AS S LEFT OUTER JOIN (Production.Products AS P LEFT OUTER JOIN Production.Categories AS C ON C.categoryid = P.categoryid) ON S.supplierid = P.supplierid WHERE S.country = N'Japan';
The result i got was same,i.e
supplier   country   productid   productname   unitprice   categorynameSupplier QOVFD   Japan   9   Product AOZBW   97.00   Meat/PoultrySupplier QOVFD   Japan  10   Product YHXGE   31.00   SeafoodSupplier QOVFD   Japan  74   Product BKAZJ   10.00   ProduceSupplier QWUSF   Japan   13   Product POXFU   6.00   SeafoodSupplier QWUSF   Japan   14   Product PWCJB   23.25   ProduceSupplier QWUSF   Japan   15   Product KSZOI   15.50   CondimentsSupplier XYZ   Japan   NULL   NULL   NULL   NULLSupplier XYZ   Japan   NULL   NULL   NULL   NULL
and this time also i got the same result.My question is that is there any specific reason to use inner join when join the third table and not the left outer join.
OLEDB source 1 SELECT ... ,[MANUAL DCD ID] <-- this column set to sort order = 1 ... FROM [dbo].[XLSDCI] ORDER BY [MANUAL DCD ID] ASC
OLEDB source 2 SELECT ... ,[Bo Tkt Num] <-- this column set to sort order = 1 ... FROM ....[dbo].[FFFenics] ORDER BY [Bo Tkt Num] ASC
These two tasks are followed immediately by a MERGE JOIN
All columns in source1 are ticked, all column in source2 are ticked, join key is shown above. join type is left outer join (source 1 -> source 2)
result of source1 (..dcd column) ... 4-400-8000119 4-400-8000120 4-400-8000121 4-400-8000122 <--row not joining 4-400-8000123 4-400-8000124 ...
result of source2 (..tkt num column) ... 4-400-1000118 4-400-1000119 4-400-1000120 4-400-1000121 4-400-1000122 <--row not joining 4-400-1000123 4-400-1000124 4-400-1000125 ...
All other rows are joining as expected. Why is it failing for this one row?
I'm having trouble with a multi-table JOIN statement with more than one JOIN statement.
For each order, I need to return the following: CarsID, CarModelName, MakeID, OrderDate, ProductName, Total ordered the Car Category.
The carid (primary key) and carmodelname belong to the Cars table. The makeid and orderdate belong to the OrderDetails table. The productname and carcategory belong to the Product table.
The number of rows returned should be the same as the number of rows in OrderDetails.
Why would I use a left join instead of a inner join when the columns entered within the SELECT command determine what is displayed from the query results?
I have a merge join (full outer join) task in a data flow. The left input comes from a flat file source and then a script transformation which does some custom grouping. The right input comes from an oledb source. The script transformation output is asynchronous (SynchronousInputID=0). The left input has many more rows (200,000+) than the right input (2,500). I run it from VS 2005 by right-click/execute on the data flow task. The merge join remains yellow and the task never finishes. I do see a row count above the flat file destination that reaches a certain number and seems to get stuck there. When I test with a smaller file on the left it works OK. Any suggestions?
A piece of software I wrote starting timing out on a query that left outer joins a table to a view. Both the table and view have approximately the same number of rows (about 170000).
The table has 2 very similar columns, one is a varchar(1) and another is varchar(100). Neither are included in any index and beyond the size difference, the columns have the same properties. One of the employees here uses the varchar(1) column (called miscsearch) to tag large sets of rows to perform some action on. In this case, he had set 9000 rows miscsearch value to "g". The query then should join the table and view for all rows where miscsearch is set to g in the table. This query takes at least 20 minutes to run (I stopped it at this point).
If I remove the "where" clause and join all rows in the two tables, the query completes in about 20 seconds. If set the varchar(100) column (called descrip) to "g" for the same rows set via miscsearch, the query completes in about 20 seconds.
If I force the join type to a hash join, the query completes using miscsearch in about 30 seconds.
So, this works:
SELECT di.File_No, prevPlacements, balance,'NOT PLACED' as status FROM Info di LEFT OUTER HASH JOIN View_PP pp ON di.ram_file_no = pp.file_no WHERE miscsearch = 'g' ORDER BY balance DESC
and this works:
SELECT di.File_No, prevPlacements, balance,'NOT PLACED' as status FROM Info di LEFT OUTER JOIN View_PP pp ON di.ram_file_no = pp.file_no WHERE descrip = 'g' ORDER BY balance DESC
But this does't:
SELECT di.File_No, prevPlacements, balance,'NOT PLACED' as status FROM Info di LEFT OUTER JOIN View_PP pp ON di.ram_file_no = pp.file_no WHERE miscsearch = 'g' ORDER BY balance DESC
What should I be looking for here to understand why this is happening?
We are trying to migrate from sql 2005 to 2012. I am changing one of the implicit join to explicit join. As soon as I change the join, the number of rows returned are fewer than before.
INSERT #RIF_TEMP1 (rf1_row_no,rf1_rif, rf1_key_id_no, rf1_last_date, rf1_start_date) SELECT currow.rf0_row_no, currow.rf0_rif, currow.rf0_key_id_no, prevrow.rf0_start_date, currow.rf0_start_date FROM #RIF_TEMP0 currow LEFT JOIN #RIF_TEMP0 prevrow ON (currow.rf0_row_no = prevrow.rf0_row_no + 1)
[Code] ....
the count returned from both the queries is different.
I am not sure what am I doing wrong. The count of #RIF_TEMP0 is always 32, it never changes, but the variable @countTemp is different for both the queries.
Why does this right join return the same results as using a left (or even a full join)?There are 470 records in Account, and there are 1611 records in Contact. But any join returns 793 records.
select Contact.firstname, Contact.lastname, Account.[Account Name] from Contact right join Account on Contact.[Account Name] = Account.[Account Name] where Contact.[Account Name] = Account.[Account Name]
Is there a way to do a super-table join ie two table join with no matching criteria? I am pulling in a sheet from XL and joining to a table in SQLServer. The join should read something like €œfor every row in the sheet I need that row and a code from a table. 100 rows in the sheet merged with 10 codes from the table = 1000 result rows.
This is the simple sql (no join on the tables):
select 1.code, 2.rowdetail from tblcodes 1, tblelements 2
I read that merge joins work a lot faster than hash joins. How would you convert a hash join into a merge join? (Referring to output on Execution Plan diagrams.) THANKS
As I mentioned in my previous post, my "real" case is a cube with 79 dimensions, most of which virtual, have been added for convenience.
Think for instance about a time dimension... Wouldn't it be nice to get a matrix with years horizontally, months vertically and displaying say the number of order you had for each cell in the resulting grid. Ok, maybe you can do this with MDX but not in Excel, unless you create virtual dimensions for the Year and Month levels.
That's all good, but as it is, in my real case, I end up with four date dimensions for which I have to provide:
YQMD (Year, Quarter, Month & Day) hirarchized dimension YWD (Year, Week, Day) YQMD (Fiscal calendar) Year Quarter Month Week Day (as 1, .. 31) Week Day (for periodicity analysis over a week's time) Date (as individual day - this is the backbone for the virtual dimensions)
It turns out this makes 40 dimensions by itself. For the sake of it, I grouped them by 4 hierarchies, although I've seen no specific functionality off of this in the data browser or Excel, so it really seems to be only for "show".
Now in my previous post I explained how I "spread" my session count to calculate a conversion rate. Given the number of dimensions I have (very high segmentation at the order level, very limited segmentation at the session/visit level), this means my calculated cell formula looks like this (hold your breath, it's ugly):
If you read all this, you can see already the cryptic dimension names like "FRD", "FSD" and so forth... that's because with the real names ("First Refund Date", "First Ship Date", the query processor errored out... visibly there is a limit in the size of the formulas you can post!
Is there no other way to achieve this result? Basically I mean to say: if the session count is not defined at your level along this dimension, go to the root of the dimension to get the value there, this along a slew of dimensions, many of which are inherently dependent because of the usage of virtual dimensions (therefore if I wish to go to the root of my "First Refund Date" for instance, I wish to do so along all sub-dimensions... Heck, as far as I'm concerned this is conceptually only ONE dimension, just with various views upon it...
Using hierachies I was sort of hoping for the ability to have something like: [FRD].[All Hierachies].[All]
Am I just asking for too much or do I just not know (quite probable) the magic keyword that can do this?
Where this is becoming quite critical is that I actually have a calculated cell that goes as follows (abridged):
SubCube: similar as before
Calculation: [Measures].[Order Count]*CalculationPassValue((...set of all un-tied dimension roots..., [Measures].[Distributed Marketing Cost])/CalculationPassValue((...set of all un-tied dimension roots..., [Measures].[Order Count])
Now the purpose of this is to distribute external costs at the order level. In short, say that you know you spent $10,000 globally promoting a specific group of websites in commission money (you pay $1 for each order). This formula allows me to get that a specific website, with 20 orders incurred an additional marketing cost of $20. That's actually the object of my next thread's question (spreading a multiplication through the aggregations)
For the purpose of this thread I am just concerned about the size of my formulas. Renaming the dimensions seemed to "buy" me some margin and I was actually quite surprised to find that the formula still fitted in, and works, but it is only a matter of time until I have to add more dimensions and the whole thing blows up in my face. Adittionally this is obviously not pleasant to look at and maintain.
I am trying to make a time dimension in analysis services. Is it possible to include the hours of a day in the dimension ? Is necessarily the day level the lowest of the hierarchy?
We deal with multiple vendors who provide us information via text/xml files. Vendor A may provide financial data, vendor b provides litigation data, vendor c provides ratings data. Our current structure has databases for each vendor with its own company table which basically makes all this data disconnected. Of course each vendor has its own proprietary company id to make records unique.
All of the data is based on companies so the grain of data would be at a company level. I would like to be able to link this information together by creating a dimensional model that has a single company table (DimCompany) and has facts populated based on the type of data we receive. Would this be the right sequence of events?
1. My initial load (historical) would have to look at all these data sources and create one company record in my DimCompany table. This table would then link to all other fact tables to provide a single view of company info. I would imagine this would have to be a fuzzy lookup since one company will be in all sources.
2. On subsequent loads (incremental) I would probably have to do a lookup of companies in the dimension via the proprietary code and add if the company wasn't there.
Any advice on tackling this issue would be greatly appreciated especially if SSIS was used in the process.
I have Created Dimension Security by restricting the user to see only his information whoever login to the system by creating a new role. It is working fine by checking the cubes by changing the role through change user option but when the cube was integrate it to any Analysis services reporting tool(Excel, Proclarity) inspite of the roles mentioned it displays the records of all the user.
Can anyone please help me out in this situation???
I am new to data mining and have a question about OLAP dimensions built from models. Do you know if you can use a dimension that was created by the mining model wizard in the same cube that is being used as the source for mining model it self? I keep getting an error about a dependency loop and just want to make sure that I am not trying to do something impossible.
If this is illegal, do you know of a way of doing this without essentially having one cube dependant on another via a mining model and dimension? I tried to use the wizard to create a mining off of a table but it did not give me the option of creating a dimension from it.
What are the pros and cons to using SSAS to create time dimensions based on a date field in the fact table as opposed to a stand alone time dimension table.
I can see many problems with loading a time dimension table. The date is from the same table as most of my fact data. I have a column in my OLTP that sets last change date so I can tell if my fact data is an insert or update but it wouldn't tell me if the date column had been changed, just some column in the table. I'm going to have several thousand sales on any given day so I'll be reading a lot of rows just to put one row into the dimension.
From a SSIS point of view I'd think leaving the date in the fact table would be better.
There is a table called "tblvZipCodes" that contain a zipcode of all cities, area code that are located in that zip code.
The problem I have with the inner join is that there are more than 1 cities in one zipcode code. Is there a way to just return only the 1st row and not return the rest of the rows from the tblvZipCodes in the INNER JOIN query?
Thanks..
Code:
SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Year, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Make, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Model, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.ModelType, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Color, dbo.tblvZipCodes.ZIPCode, dbo.tblvZipCodes.City, dbo.tblvZipCodes.County, dbo.tblvZipCodes.State, dbo.tblvZipCodes.AreaCode, dbo.tblvZipCodes.Region, dbo.tblaAccounts.Name, dbo.tblaAccounts.PhoneOne, dbo.tblaAccounts.AccountID, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.AcceptedID, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Series, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.BodyStyle, dbo.tblaAccounts.WebSite, dbo.tblaAccounts.SalesEmail, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.EmailTo, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.PhotoURL, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Mileage, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.RawID, dbo.tblvRegions.Name AS RegionName, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.VIN, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Style, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.StockDate FROM dbo.tblPurchaseRaw INNER JOIN dbo.tblaAccounts ON dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.AccountID = dbo.tblaAccounts.AccountID INNER JOIN dbo.tblvZipCodes ON dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.ZipCode = dbo.tblvZipCodes.ZIPCode INNER JOIN dbo.tblvRegions ON dbo.tblvZipCodes.Region = dbo.tblvRegions.RegionID WHERE (CONVERT(char, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.StockDate, 101) <> '01/01/1900') AND (dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.SoldRawID IS NULL) AND (dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.AcceptedID <> - 10) AND (dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.AcceptedID <> - 1) ORDER BY dbo.tblvZipCodes.ZIPCode
hello, i am running mysql server 5 and i have sql syntax like this: select sales.customerid as cid, name, count(saleid) from sales inner join customers on customers.customerid=sales.customerid group by sales.customerid order by sales.customerid; it works fine and speedy. but when i change inner join to right join, in order to get all customers even there is no sale, my server locks up. note: there is about 10000 customers and 15000 sales. what can be the problem? thanks,
I have 2 tables, I will add sample data to them to help me explain...Table1(Fields: A, B)=====1,One2,Two3,ThreeTable2(Fields: A,B)=====2,deux9,neufI want to create a query that will only return data so long as the key(Field A) is on both tables, if not, return nothing. How can I dothis? I am thnking about using a 'JOIN' but not sure how to implementit...i.e: 2 would return data- but 9 would not...any help would be appreciated.
Hi,Just curious. Would you use ANSI style table joining or the 'oldfashion' table joining; especially if performance is the main concern?What I meant is illustrated below:ANSI Styleselect * from a join b on a.id = b.idOld Styleselect * from a, b where a.id = b.idI noticed that in some SQL, the ANSI is much faster but sometimes, theold style looks much better.It's ridiculous to try out both styles to see which is better wheneverwe want to write an SQL statement.Please comment.Thanks in advance.
Hello, everyoneI have one question about the standard join and inner join, which oneis faster and more reliable? Can you recommend me to use? Please,explain me...ThanksChamnap
