ConsolidateChildren Formula Error

[cdhodge2002]

So I am trying to create a rule that does a formula when at a Level 1 element but then Consolidates this element naturally at the Level 2 elements. I need this to occur in 2 of my Dimensions. The issue is that when I go to Add this rule the cube cells show as blank and when I trace calculation it shows as having a "Rule Line Error". As Far as I know this is the only way to force consolidate these dimensions as hardcoding the consolidation is not an option. My Cube is also giving me an error that says "(OutOfMemory) Maximum Memory for Action exceeded" when I create a very large view in cube viewer. Has anybody ever encountered these errors and come across a solution?.

[Steve Rowe]

Cough

ConsolidateChildren can be a fairly nasty piece of functionality to use and if possible should be avoided. In some (all?) versions it is very heavy on the memory too. If you give some more detail on what you need to do maybe we can figure a way to do that does not require ConsolidateChildren.

The out of memory error you are getting is becuase TM1 has a maximum limit to the size of the cube view it will deliver to the user and the view you are requesting is exceeding that. There is a cfg parameter you can use to control this but use it with caution, I don't have the exact details to hand. I think its MaximumViewSize, but not exactly sure.

HTH
Steve

[cdhodge2002]

So what I am basically trying to do is create a rule that will do a calculation at the Level 1 level in 2 of my dimensions. So a rule without n: gives me the exact calculation I need at the Level 1 elements. Then I need those calculation to consolidate into the level 2 elements. So I basically need to force a the level 2 element to consolidate.

[Steve Rowe]

How about

[]= If ( Ellev ('Dim1' !Dim1)=1 & Ellev ('Dim2' !Dim2)=2 , your calc, stet);

You might need to refine the If conditiona bit.

I always feel that needing to use consolidation children means that I have an issue with my design and a step back and review of the design can remove the need to do so.

In general terms rules should apply at
level 0 only or
all levels

Once you get into controlling the calculations at different levels in a cube you are a very rocky road.
Cheers,

[paulsimon]

Hi

I tried the following (not that you would ever want to do this for real but it is an example to test consolidatechildren):

skipcheck ;

['Sales'] =
IF( ELLEV('Station' , !Station) <= 1
,
['Units']*['Price']
,
STET
) ;

feeders ;

['Units']=>['Sales'] ;

NB You need to have a feeder for this to work at all. Simply having a value at the base level and overriding it at level 1 with a rule means not consolidated values above level 1.

However, the above did not consolidate the values from the Level 1 correctly. Instead I got the sum of the base level.

I had to replace the STET with consolidatechildren('Station') ;

However, I have never been able to think of a valid business scenario where you would need to use consolidate children. If you do need to use it, I would suggest taking things to another cube, where level 1 in your more detailed cube is level 0, and your detailed cube should only have two levels.

Perhaps if you can explain more about the business problem and include some of your rules, then we could help more.

Regards


Paul Simon

[cdhodge2002]

So the business issue is that I have two dimensions, an item dimensions and a customer dimension. The customer dim goes Ship to>Parent>All

The Item dim goes Item>Item parent>All items

This calculation needs to be done at the parameter for the rules revolve around the Parent Item and Parent customer. However they want to be able to drill down into individual items and ship tos as well. Once the calc is done at the Parent Item and Parent Customer they want this calculation to consolidate into the All items and All customer level. This is the reason I was trying to do a force consolidate with a consolidatechildren formula. This is one of those things that during development was never brought up but at the end it is a requirement.