TM1 Forum

Just want to double check before I over engineer...

I have two cubes that I want to be totally independent in order to preserve the Rule Cache in each cube.

If the rule sheet for both cubes reference the attributes of the same dimension via a lookup, something like a prior period lookup then does this create a dependency between my two cubes?
i.e.
in Cube A
['Measure'] = DB ('Cube A' , ......, DB('}ElementAttributes_Period' , !Period, 'Prior') ,....);

in Cube B
['Measure'] = DB ('Cube B' , ......, DB('}ElementAttributes_Period' , !Period, 'Prior') ,....);

My instinctive response is that it does create a dependency between Cube A <---> Cube B as the dependency logic in the engine doesn't care about the direction of the dependency (I assume).

Has anyone done direct testing of this?

Hi,

I've never done any testing but during server startup, can you see the cube dependency being created ?
You could also use in tm1s-log.properties file.

Let us know if you find anything, that's an interesting one

Steve Rowe wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:35 am If the rule sheet for both cubes reference the attributes of the same dimension via a lookup, something like a prior period lookup then does this create a dependency between my two cubes?

No.

Steve Rowe wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:35 am in Cube A
['Measure'] = DB ('Cube A' , ......, DB('}ElementAttributes_Period' , !Period, 'Prior') ,....);

in Cube B
['Measure'] = DB ('Cube B' , ......, DB('}ElementAttributes_Period' , !Period, 'Prior') ,....);

My instinctive response is that it does create a dependency between Cube A <---> Cube B as the dependency logic in the engine doesn't care about the direction of the dependency (I assume).

This creates a dependency in both cubes to the (attribute cube of the) Period dimension. It doesn't create a dependency between cube A & cube B.