Page 1 of 1
SubsetCreatebyMDX workaround?
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:15 pm
by garry cook
I suspect the answer is no but has anybody managed to get round the "String too large" / "Stack Overflow" issue of using TI MDX generation when over the 255 limit in V9.0 SP2?
The MDX works fine when pasted straight into the sub editor so it can handle it fine but the TI won't create it due to the length issue.
Can see a horrid workaround on the horizon based on hardcoding directly to the .sub files to create new subs but before I go down this route, just interested if anyone found a clever workaround.
You never know
TIA
Re: SubsetCreatebyMDX workaround?
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:40 pm
by qml
Just a stab in the dark here...
Since you can refer to your subset when you already have it defined using the [dim_name].[subset_name] formula, how about trying to create a few nested subsets, making use of one another, sth along the lines of:
Code: Select all
{UNION(
{[dim_name].[subset1]},
{[dim_name].[subset2]}
)}
Basically, you'd have to split your MDX subset into simpler building blocks and then connect them somehow.
I don't have the time to test the above idea in your version of TM1, but there is good chance it could work.
Re: SubsetCreatebyMDX workaround?
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:06 am
by lotsaram
Or cough, cough, dare I say it, ...
Upgrade to 9.4 or 9.5 where >255 character string variables are no longer an issue.
Re: SubsetCreatebyMDX workaround?
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:36 am
by garry cook
Yes but sadly the unicode issue at 9.3 preventing backward compatibility presents too great a risk to upgrade at the present (not to me, to IT) and having come in to here three months ago, I'm still sorting out a hell of a lot of stuff that's in serious need of attention before I attempt to push this company through an upgrade. Sometimes, you just got to be realistic with a company's ability / readiness to upgrade and put in a short term solution which sadly is where I am currently.
Re: SubsetCreatebyMDX workaround?
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:02 pm
by Alan Kirk
garry cook wrote:Yes but sadly the unicode issue at 9.3 preventing backward compatibility presents too great a risk to upgrade at the present (not to me, to IT) and having come in to here three months ago, I'm still sorting out a hell of a lot of stuff that's in serious need of attention before I attempt to push this company through an upgrade. Sometimes, you just got to be realistic with a company's ability / readiness to upgrade and put in a short term solution which sadly is where I am currently.
Not to mention, if you're still on 32 bit, the 9.1 memory "bump" that will prevent perfectly viable 9.0 models from even getting out of bed in a 9.1-9.5 version.