Drill process question

[kugors]

Hi all,

I'm trying to drill from one cube to another. I have two different named dimensions in this cubes, but with exactly the same elements. I did this because these dimensions are in aproval hierarchy in different Planner aplications. If there is a way to map them in drill process? I tried to map one to another in Prolog, but it doesn't worked.

Regards

Kuba

[declanr]

Kugors,

Mapping elements between views in 2 cubes of different dimensionality is exactly what drilling processes are for.

What have you done so far?

When you say not working... do you mean that the process isn't opening the second view at all or is it just not showing the elements you want within the view?

[kugors]

I have done TI process and rule, and it is working, but it doesn't map these two dimensions.
Lets say I have two cubes:

C1 - dimensions: Version, Department
C2 - Version, Department_1

When i drill from C1 to C2, Version dimension is mapped correctly, and Department not. It is showing default Deprtment_1 in view that is used for drill.

I tried writing in prolog Department _1 = Department; but it doesn't worked

[tomok]

If the elements in Department and Department_1 are exactly the same why are you trying to "map" anything? Just pass the value in the Department variable to the drill into Cube 2. That should work fine.

[qml]

Kuba, check out this thread to see what a well phrased problem/question should look like. It's really a lot easier to provide help if you have all the basic information provided. Like, you know, what you are trying to do and the code you have created to do it.

[Steve Rowe]

Also see this post for a code snippet on how to put the elements in the subset of the other dimension. http://www.tm1forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3178

You can put whatever code you like in the TI before the epilog, so basically you just manipulate the subsets in the prolog.

[kugors]

@tomok - mapping was a bad word, passing is what I'm trying to achieve

@qml - next time I wil describe my problem better.

@Steve - Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for.