I'm trying to figure it if one can build an SSAS cube quickly for prototyping from just one huge and wide table without doing any ETL and custom SQL. Is it even possible?
What we are trying to do, we have a bunch of these tables for different subject areas which were denormalized and a lot of efforts were put to create them and test them. We need a quick way to access this data now and run analytical queries but before we spend time on ETL/dimensional design, we wanted to build a quick cube.
Please do not suggest PowerPivot or any other in-memory tools - these tables are really big and we have very limited RAM at our disposal,
Yes, it's possible. Simply use the same table for creating both dimensions and cubes (measure groups). It's not ideal to do it like this for production, but you should be fine for prototyping.
Another alternative I always use in situations like this, create SQL views on top of the wide table to mimic the dimension and facts (dimensional model). And use views in the data source view. If you've time you can spend on creating the views, this is the best method. Because at the end of the prototype you know the model and functionality is working, and you just need to create physical data warehouse and ETL when you're ready to implement in production.
Related
I've tried searching around to see what the best practices are when designing a view that will be used for visualization going directly into PowerBI or Tableau.
I don't know the best way to ask this but is there an issue with creating a big query 30+ columns with multiple joins in the DB for export into the visualization platform? I've seen some posts regarding size and about breaking up into multiple queries but those are also in reference to bringing into some program and writing logic in the program to do the joins etc.
I have tried both ways so far, smaller views that I then create relationships in PowerBI or larger views where I'm dealing with one just flat table. I realize that in most respects PowerBI can do a star scheme with data being brought in but I've also run into weird issues with filtering within the PowerBI itself, that I have been able to alleviate and speed up by doing that work in the DB instead.
Database is a Snowflake warehouse.
Wherever possible, you should be using the underlying database to do the work that databases are good at i.e. selecting/filtering/aggregating data. So your BI tools should be querying those tables rather than bringing all the data into the BI tool as one big dataset and then letting the BI tool process it
I am creating a dataset In Power BI Desktop using data in a SQL Server database. I have read the sqlbi article that recommends using database views but I would like to know: how do I structure them?
There is already a view of the database that contains most of the information I need. This view consists of 7 or 8 other, more basic views (mainly 2 column tables with keys and values), combined using left joins. Do I import the larger view as a flat table, or each of the smaller views and create a relationships etc, ideally in a star schema, in Power BI?
I guess conceptually I am asking: where does the SQL stop and Power BI start when it comes to creating and importing views?
where does the SQL stop and Power BI start when it comes to creating and importing views?
Great question. No simple answer. Typically modeling in Power BI is quicker and easier than modeling in the database. But modeling in the database enables DirectQuery, and is more useful outside of Power BI.
Sometimes it boils down to who is creating the model. The "data warehouse" team will tend to create models in the database first, either with views or tables. Analysts and end-users tend to create models directly in Power BI.
Sometimes it boils down to whether the model is intended to be used in multiple reports or not.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach here.
If your larger view already has what you need and you need it for just one-off report then you can modify it to add additional fields(data points) considering the trade off for effort needed to create a schema.
The decision weather you should import smaller views and connect them as Star schema ( considering that they have a fact table surrounded by dimension tables) depends on if you are going to use that in lot of other reports where the data is connected i.e. giving you same level of information in every report.
Creating views also depends on lot of other factors, are you querying a reporting snapshot(or read-replicas) of your prod database or you are querying the actual production database. This might restrict you or impact the choice for Views and Materialized Views.
When building a Data Warehouse I usually see two main approaches for the ETL-process:
1. View - View of views - View of views of views - ...
Approach one is obviously in the database and has the advantage that you don't have that much redundant data, but could lead to performance issues.
2. Stage table (copy of data) - clear table (copy of data) - dwh table (copy of data) - ...
Approach two could be done with many tools as stored procedures and jobs or a ETL-tool like SSIS.
The advantage here is that it's easy to understand the process as you can visualise it pretty good. You usually also have a very good overall ETL-performance and many predefined tasks etc.
A problem could be for example, that a change of the process is more complex as persistent tables have to be changed.
In the real world you usually see a mix of both, especially when many people have worked on the process.
Of course it also depends on the situation (size of tables, how are similar processes designed in this company, how complex is the ETL-process, ...).
I personally prefer to copy tables, keep the ETL-process simple and if possible do everything in the ETL-tool (usually SSIS in my case) which is designed for this purpose.
But what is best practice and why?
views an views of views would not scale with volume of data in DWH. When it comes of dwh i mean we are talking about huge volumes of data. Integration of data from multiple sources is a common usecase for dwh. Stage->tranform-->fact/dim is the one of the most common way how dwh are built to store data. Yes this would change somewhat when we talk about hdfs and other technologies, but views would not be able to give you desired performance in dwh.
I have seen many systems and all of them have a multi step etl process where you first get data into dwh from sources and then clean/process/conform/transform this data via ETL/others in to your dimensional/other model.
If you want to know point-in-time reference data relationships, implemented in a dimensional DW as type-2 or type-3 slowly changing dimensions, you probably won't find this in a source system.
The scale issue mentioned by garpitmzn is not just about data volumes, but also the joins necessary to restructure and denormalise the data for dimensional analysis. Using views (unless materialised) you'd repeat potentially complex joins for every query. Better to do it once at the time the dimension is loaded.
I'm a few months into developing a reporting solution. Currently I am loading a relational data warehouse (Fact and Dimension tables) using SSIS. SSAS cubes and dimensions are then created from the relational Data warehouse. I then use SSRS to build reports using MDX queries.
The problem I have is that things are starting to get rather complicated trying to understand how multidimensional modelling works as well as MDX and cubes. Since the organization it's being designed for is rather small, I'm thinking that I should re-evaluate my approach.
I think maybe I should just eliminate SSAS from the picture and simply create reports that report directly off the relational data warehouse using SQL queries. The relational data warehouse could still be loaded nightly to allow up to date data for reporting.
I'm just wondering if that would be a good idea considering I'm not very experienced with data warehousing and SSAS. Also I wanted to know if keeping my relational data warehouse in dimension and fact tables would still work with SQL queries or would I need to redesign the tables. I don't want to make the decision to eliminate SSAS if that will end up causing more headaches or issues.
The reports will not include complicated calculations besides row counts and YTD percentages. For example "How many callers were male?" and "How many callers called for Product A?" Which are then broken down by month.
Any comments or suggestion are much appreciated cause I'm starting to feel rather frustrated with trying get SSAS cubes developed properly.
I was in a similar situation at my company. I had never used SSAS, and I was asked to do research on the benefits of using cubes to do some reporting. It was a pretty steep learning curve because my background is in development not data and reporting. SSAS is most useful when aggregate queries on a relational database are time consuming and if reports need to be broken down into hierarchies that an analyst can use to better understand the state of the business. Since SSAS stores aggregate info, queries of that nature are very quick. If your organization's data is small, the relational queries might be quick enough that you don't really need the benefit of storing aggregates.
Also you need to take into consideration the maintainability of using SSAS. If you're having trouble figuring out SSAS and MDX then how easy of a time will others? I tried to explain an MDX query I wrote to my boss who is experienced with SQL, but it's really quite different from relational queries. How easy is it going to be to add more complex reports?
A benefit to using SSAS is it can put the analyst in control of the report. Second, there are great tools and support. Finally, it's pretty easy to deploy and connect.
You can remove SSAS from your architecture yes because all the results you can get from an MDX query to SSAS, you can get from a T-SQL query to your datawarehouse because the cube was built reading data from the DW. BUT, bear in mind the following: the main advantage on an OLAP cube, in my point of view, are aggregations.
Very simple explanation: lets say you have a fact table called orders with 1 million orders per month. If you want to know how much you sold on that month, using sql you need to read row by row and sum the value to produce the total. That's like 1 million reads on your DB. If you have a cube, with the propper agrregations configured, you can have that value pre-calculated and pre-stored on your cube so if you need to know how much you sold on a month, you will have only one read to your cube.
Its a matter of analyse your situation, if you have a small cube, maybe aggregations are not necessary and you cna do fine with SQL, but depending on the situation, they can be very helpfull
I need to extract some management information (MI) from data which is updated in overnight batches. I will be using aggregate functions to generate the MI from tables with hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of rows. The information will be displayed on a web page.
The critical factor here is the efficiency of SQL Server's handling of aggregate functions.
I am faced with two choices for generating the data:
Write stored procs/views to generate the information from the raw data which are called every time someone accesses a page
Create tables which are refreshed daily and act as a cache for the MI
What is the best approach to take?
Cache the values during your nightly load if the data doesn't change throughout the day. It will make retrieval much faster. I'm a big fan of summary tables when necessary. In your case, they're necessary!
One thing you may want to look into, since you own SQL Server, is Analysis Services. By creating a Multidimensional Database, or a cube, these aggregations all happen automagically, and you can drill down and across your data to find numbers at the speed of thought, instead of trying to write reports that capture all of those numbers. Spend 10 minutes and watch the intro video of it, and I think you'll garner a real appreciation for SSAS's power.
It sounds to me like an Analysis Services Cube would actually be the best fit to your problem. The cube processesing can be run after the data loads occur to aggregate the data for later use.
However, you could also possibly use an indexed view, which if designed correctly and used in conjunction with the NO EXPAND table hint can provide a significant performance increase.
SQL 2005 Indexed Views
SQL 2008 Indexed Views