TM1 Forum

What he said.

It doesn't matter if an area statement on the LHS uses an alias, when !dimension is used on the RHS it will always evaluate as the principal name. This is how it has always been and will always be.

At least you understand that using aliases on the LHS is a bad idea. Don't do this.

After reading the link Wim provided, I have to say it makes a good point about not using the shortcut. I have used both the cube query and the short cut although most of the time I've used the shortcut syntax. Will probably adjust that going forward as it is more clear using the cube query. Also on...

This kind of thing should be configurable and left in the hands of the user. FWIW I agree. Ideally there should be a toggle in the row dimensions area for symetric vs asymetric drill-down. As a user this is what I would want. But if I have to choose between one and the other then I would take asyme...

I think the short answer is that indenting to indicate parent/child relationships when exporting from TM1Web wasn't considdered necessary as part of the MVP and it has never been an important enough missing feature to revisit. That's probably unlikely to change.

How can I achieve the old Architect-behaviour in a PAW cube view? By default, a consolidation is just extended in the row I click. What if I want to extend it in all rows? You have chosen to wake up quite an old thread. Short answer, you can't. PAW only does asymetric drill-down. In general I think...

Spreading over a rule does work as long as at the leaf level there is only 1 independent variable. As you have more than one potential input to flex spreading can't be done.

We are experiencing a similar issue after applying 2.0.9.15 meaning we can't load attributes into our control cubes with rule files attached. A TI process that took a few seconds now takes so long it doesn't finish after running for several hours. Looks like this has already been reported to IBM. T...

(Just thinking out loud about solutions, not trying to say it isn't a problem....) For a certain level of complexity of MDX you could probably have a TI whose only job was to parse an MDX statement and figure out the contents. Can certainly see how this would be challenging / impossible for all pos...

Search for
[PH50635] TI process updating attributes has significant performance degredation if attribute cube contains rules
It might apply in your case.
I'm skipping 2.0.9.15 until this is fixed.

I've not tried but can see how this could be generalised for any dimensioned cubes. All well and good if you can dictate the format of the query. If you can control the way the query is constructed then you can control the order of the variables. But what if the content of the MDX statement is unkn...

I can confirm that it is not fixed and certainly not ready to be used in anything generic where you cannot know upfront the variables that you will get in what order. This is very bad since cube views with PA alternate hierarchies are not accessible using traditional views. In a generic process I a...

Well it was discussed at length here https://www.tm1forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=73332&sid=ba5cbd3e85205d0af84de89c32557426#p73332 But I wouldn't call that recently. Well yeah this is my APAR https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/apar/PH24729 ... and according to IBM yes this was closed as "fixed&...

You can only access alternate hierarchies through MDX views not traditional views. At this time drill-through only supports traditional views as the target and not MDX views. You can vote for the RFE to support MDX views in drill-through here https://ibm-data-and-ai.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/PAOC-I-393 No...

Ah, I got it! I should be looping through the second dimension like such... GENERATE(FILTER(TM1FILTERBYLEVEL(TM1SUBSETALL([MMAP Versions]) , 0) , [MMAP Versions].CURRENTMEMBER.PROPERTIES("Vintage") <> "") , {STRTOMEMBER("[MMAP Vintages].[" + [MMAP Versions].CURRENTMEMB...

Should be possible. But you would need to use the Generate function.

People usually pay me to fix that kind of problem. I feel like every time you have an issue, you post on this forum. Yeah dude seriously no one is going to read through that much code and provide you with a free answer (not even Declan). A circular reference is exactly what the error says it is. Fi...

There are functions which MDX can deliver quite easily which TM1 rules either can't deliver unless you go back to 1st principles algebra (e.g. standard deviation) or where it simply isn't worth writing a separate rule for or for things like min/max/count/average where the relevance of the analysis i...

CDM still works very well with TM1 as a data source. If you think it would be a good solution then suggest it to the client. Whether to accept the extra cost and licensing versus the benefits of the software is their decision not yours.

This looks like you have both element security on the Projects dimension where the users have at least READ access and cell security rules on the cube in question which are giving NONE access to the consolidations in the Projects dimension.

Hi Jorge, I think at some point you hgave transposed some 9s to 6s. Originally you say 4.769999999996 (but from the screenshot it is 4.7700000000999996). But then in a later post you quote 4.7666666669. This number can't be correct and if this is the case the difference (althoug as Wim says only 0.0...