Deleting damaged AttributeElement Cube
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:24 pm
Dear all,
I inherited a TM1 Environment from my predecessor.
The ElementAttributes Cube for the Dimension ITEM was somehow renamed to "ElementAttributes_ITEM_damaged".
However for month this Attribute Cube seemed to be ok anyway.
Now I tried to delete and re-structure some Alias Attributes for this dimension.
For some reason I can delete the alias attributes on N-Element level but cannot for C-Elements.
By the way, a cube named "... _damaged" doesn't make me feel very comfortable.
Therefore I would appriciate your thoughts regarding the following procedure:
In an test environment I was able to stop the TM1 Service and then to delete the CUB File for this attribute cube. Afterwards it was re-created automatically when I imported attribut values again. Would this procedure lead to problems?
Alternatively I thought about deleting and recreating just the attributes that cause problems. That might help, but I would need to stay with me "... _damaged" cube.
Is there any better idea?
Thanks for your input,
Gunnar
I inherited a TM1 Environment from my predecessor.
The ElementAttributes Cube for the Dimension ITEM was somehow renamed to "ElementAttributes_ITEM_damaged".
However for month this Attribute Cube seemed to be ok anyway.
Now I tried to delete and re-structure some Alias Attributes for this dimension.
For some reason I can delete the alias attributes on N-Element level but cannot for C-Elements.
By the way, a cube named "... _damaged" doesn't make me feel very comfortable.
Therefore I would appriciate your thoughts regarding the following procedure:
In an test environment I was able to stop the TM1 Service and then to delete the CUB File for this attribute cube. Afterwards it was re-created automatically when I imported attribut values again. Would this procedure lead to problems?
Alternatively I thought about deleting and recreating just the attributes that cause problems. That might help, but I would need to stay with me "... _damaged" cube.
Is there any better idea?
Thanks for your input,
Gunnar