Page 1 of 1
Consolidation and feeders
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:03 pm
by rodrigo
Hi, guys I want to be sure of something,
If I have a C: element named Income (formed by local, inter and other) this feeder is correct?
SKIPCHECK;
['income'] = N: ['discount'] * .15;
FEEDERS;
['discount'] => ['income']; is ok?
probably i will not have a "not fed", but a C: can feed a N:?
Regards,
Re: Consolidation and feeders
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:32 pm
by Steve Vincent
Looks fine to me, you can feed from N to C but you'll have trouble if you try to feed C to N.
Re: Consolidation and feeders
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:44 pm
by rodrigo
Thanks Steve, i just wanted to be sure.
Regards,
Re: Consolidation and feeders
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:36 am
by Michel Zijlema
rodrigo wrote:Hi, guys I want to be sure of something,
If I have a C: element named Income (formed by local, inter and other) this feeder is correct?
SKIPCHECK;
['income'] = N: ['discount'] * .15;
FEEDERS;
['discount'] => ['income']; is ok?
probably i will not have a "not fed", but a C: can feed a N:?
Hi Rodrigo,
If ['income'] is a C: element than the rule ['income'] = N: ['discount'] * .15 will not return a result, because of the N: prefix in the rule - this will make the rule calculate for N-level elements only. When you change your rule to ['income'] = ['discount'] * .15 the rule will calculate on a C-level (but then regarding all dimensions).
Please note that when you feed a C-level element you're in fact feeding the child-elements of this C-level element, not the C-level element itself. The C-level element will only "be fed" if at least one of it's children has a non-zero value (as you can't really feed the C-level element itself, with "be fed" I mean the consolidated element will f.i. show up correctly in a zero surpressed view).
Michel
Re: Consolidation and feeders
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:03 am
by rodrigo
mmmh big mistake michael i wrote, sure a discount formula was
['discount']=N:['income'] *.15; (30+30+40)*.15= 15 usd discount!
trying to feed with
['income'']=>{'discount'};
i was on a hurry and suddenly i hit some button that moved the screen to another and when I refreshed it was blanked... i wrote it again quickly crossing a nonsense formula. sorry!
does it make a difference from steve[s answer? income is a C: that feeds a N: like discount
Re: Consolidation and feeders
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:08 am
by Michel Zijlema
Hi Rodrigo,
This rule/feeder looks OK to me.
Michel
Re: Consolidation and feeders
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:23 pm
by adma76
Hi Guys,
My rule of thumb for writing feeders, seek for the feeder "trigger" (lowest level) , try to avoid feeding C: levels (a big temptation) it's can overfeed the model and damage the system performance.
Nice Day,
Aviad Malka
biconix-intl.com
Re: Consolidation and feeders
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:16 pm
by ScottW
Hi Rodrigo,
In this case if the discount % is constant and doesn't vary by product/channel then you can do away with this rule alltogether and make discount a consolidation, the child income will have a weighting of 0.15.