What difference do hierarchies make
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:18 am
Hi,
I am trying to understand how hierarchies change the approach to building TM1 models.
I have an example of the 'old way' and wondered if in the world of hierarchies this old way was, well, old!
So in the example I have 2 cubes, CubeA and CubeB.
They have matching dimension except in CubeB there is a dimension called, Codes, which
is not in CubeA and in CubeA there is a dimension called CodeType which is not in CubeB.
Now in the Codes dimension there are thousands of elements and in the CodeType dimension there are only 4 elements.
I now create a rule in CubeA to bring in a value from CubeB and I need to match the CodeType dimension with the Codes dimension.
To achieve this I build 4 new rollups (consolidations) in the Codes dimension, so I create 4 consolidations, one for
each of the elements in CodeType and link the Codes elements to these consolidations.
That way I can now reference the !CodeType in the DB to CubeB, so something like
['Value']=N: DB('CubeB', !Year, !Version, 'All_Units', !CodeType, 'balance');
So in the above rule !CodeType does not exist in CubeB but because it exists as a consolidation in dimension Codes I can use this method
to retrieve the values.
So is this method still valid or does the new hierarchies in Planning Analytics make this method out of date?
And are there any good articles which can describe the difference that hierarchies bring to developing models?
Maren
I am trying to understand how hierarchies change the approach to building TM1 models.
I have an example of the 'old way' and wondered if in the world of hierarchies this old way was, well, old!
So in the example I have 2 cubes, CubeA and CubeB.
They have matching dimension except in CubeB there is a dimension called, Codes, which
is not in CubeA and in CubeA there is a dimension called CodeType which is not in CubeB.
Now in the Codes dimension there are thousands of elements and in the CodeType dimension there are only 4 elements.
I now create a rule in CubeA to bring in a value from CubeB and I need to match the CodeType dimension with the Codes dimension.
To achieve this I build 4 new rollups (consolidations) in the Codes dimension, so I create 4 consolidations, one for
each of the elements in CodeType and link the Codes elements to these consolidations.
That way I can now reference the !CodeType in the DB to CubeB, so something like
['Value']=N: DB('CubeB', !Year, !Version, 'All_Units', !CodeType, 'balance');
So in the above rule !CodeType does not exist in CubeB but because it exists as a consolidation in dimension Codes I can use this method
to retrieve the values.
So is this method still valid or does the new hierarchies in Planning Analytics make this method out of date?
And are there any good articles which can describe the difference that hierarchies bring to developing models?
Maren