Comments for Dave's Adventures in Business Intelligence

Comment on Making Up Data Part I: Personal Data Providers by Bill Avery

Bill Avery — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:14:28 +0000

This is cool! I wish I had known how to do this a few months ago. (Guess I would have if I had read your post!)

Thank you.

Comment on What Are Unbalanced Data Providers And Why Should I Care? by Dave Rathbun

Dave Rathbun — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:20:43 +0000

N_Kumar, you can’t “fool” the product like that. There are clearly more than one Resort value for each Year, so the #MULTIVALUE error would be correct. If the values are properly details, then they should be details at the universe level.

Comment on What Are Unbalanced Data Providers And Why Should I Care? by N_Kumar

N_Kumar — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:26:45 +0000

HI Dave,
Greate Post.
In Xi R2 Can we include all dim & measure in single block.If yes then how
We have requirement like that
Ex-Year|Resort|Region|Revenue|no of guest
I have created Region & resort as a detail based on merged year it is giving all measure value perfectly but Resort is showing #Multivalue error

Comment on Displaying UserResponse() Values On Separate Rows by Justin

Justin — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:36:58 +0000

Great tip!! was actually looking to build a multi-line address variable and couldn’t recall the syntax for inserting CR/LF between each element

Comment on SORT_BY_NO=NO? Very Confusing… by Chris

Chris — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:18:55 +0000

SORT_BY_NO could be thought of as “Sort by Named Objects” as in “Named in the Select”

Comment on SORT_BY_NO=NO? Very Confusing… by kay

kay — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:56:57 +0000

Nice …after reading it I went & checked my .PRM files and found that for tredata by deafult it was set to YES but for Oracle by default it was set to NO. I’m assuming that’s the case after standard set-up. In any case excellent post Dave (as always)

Comment on SORT_BY_NO=NO? Very Confusing… by Mark

Mark — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:58:51 +0000

Fantastic post Dave,

I didn’t know this was possible, thanks for sharing. The paramters whether they are, universe or prm, based have always been poorly documented and a bit of a “Dark Art”.

Cheers,

Mark.

Comment on Want To Crash Teradata? Give It Some LOV… by Dave Rathbun

Dave Rathbun — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:25:35 +0000

We have run into a snag, of course. Some of the LOV definitions in another universe use the ability to “sort by” an object that does not exist in the select clause. This results in invalid SQL once the distinct is removed and the group by is added because the additional column does not show up in the group by clause…

No solution yet.

Comment on Want To Crash Teradata? Give It Some LOV… by Dave Rathbun

Dave Rathbun — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:50:58 +0000

Thani, welcome and thank you for your comment. The parameter does, in fact, change the behavior of the “retrieve duplicate rows” option. It will also use a GROUP BY rather than a DISTINCT. The net result should be the same.

Comment on Want To Crash Teradata? Give It Some LOV… by Dave Rathbun

Dave Rathbun — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:48:23 +0000

I am not aware of a method to exclude any LOV from this sort parameter.