Multidimensional Data Warehouse Alternative for Reporting - sql

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

Related

what are the pre-requisites and practices for multidimensional cube Designing ( during analysis phase)?

I'm assigned to design multidimensional cube in SSAS.
As I am very new to SSAS, and currently this is in analysis phase.
Just wanted to see , is there any standard process or guideline should I follow or any general questions should I prepare prior to cube designing?
One thing client specifically mentioned about the volume of data as
One service area has 3 million rows, 3 years of data
Does it mean, we should plan for partition strategy ? if yes then what are the things should I be looking ? one thing comes in my mind
what field should we consider to split the cube (am I heading in right direction ?)
What are the other factor should I consider during analysis ?

SSAS design is a large topic with different angels. If i were in your shoes, I'd google for "SSAS Design" or something along those lines to learn more. For example, here's a model chapter from a book provided by Microsoft themselves: https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2812063
I'd skip for partitioning at this stage. See how it performs first and tune it later if really necessary. Usually partitioning is done on some accumulating field , like a date, where old data is not processed daily and only the latest data (partition) is updated (processed). This of course depends on the data you're dealing with.

What are reporting cubes in regards to Oracle SQL?

I am curious about what "reporting cubes" are and how they relate to Oracle SQL ?
I read that they are similar to V-Lookup in Excel, but I'm not understanding much else.
thanks !

They're rather more than that! A Cube is an Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) database, as opposed to a normal DB which is an Online Transaction Processing (OLTP) DB. It's a database optimised for reporting - many times faster than querying an OLTP database. For example, I had a DB which took users up to 2 hours to get reports out. We put the data in an OLAP cube and the queries took less than 10 seconds.
This Wikipedia article is a reasonable place to start.
Note that most OLAP databases will not be updated in real time as the OLTP db is updated, but will have to have extracts made on a regular basis. Also, designing an OLAP db is not like designing an OLTP one. You need to analyse the queries the users are going to want, and split your data into Fact tables (the base data which is being reported) and Dimensions (how the users will want the data selected selected or summed). Not too difficult once you get your head round the idea, though.

Best way to report comparisons of one agency to the rest of the state/nation

When attempting to do some benchmarking type reports, I run into the issue of extreme slowness due to the amount of data residing in the database, and this will get incrementally worse. I'm curious of what would be considered the best approach for reports that show for example a percentage of patients entering the hospital within a certain date range that were there due to a specific condition, as well as how that particular hospital compares to the state percentage and also the national percentage. Of course this is all based on the hospitals whose data resides in the database. I have just been writing stored procedures to calculate these percentages, but I know this isn't the best approach. I'm curious how other more experienced reporting professionals would tackle this. I'm currently using SSRS for reporting. I know a little about SSAS, but not enough to know if I should consider it for this type of reporting.

This all depends on the data-structure and the kind of calculations you have to do.
You try to narrow down the amount of data you have to process and the complexity of operations in every possible way
If you have lots of data on a slow system you first try to select the needed data, transfer it to the calculation point and then keep it cached as long as you can.
If you have huge amounts of data you try to preprocess it as much as you can. E.g. for datawarehouses you have a datetime-table with year/month/day/day-of-week/week-of-year etc in it and just constraints to them in the other tables. Like this you can avoid timeconsuming calculations.
If the operations are complex you have to analyze them to make them simpler/faster but on this point it is impossible to predict how much (if at all) there is some room.
It all depends on your understanding of the data-structure and processes you need them for, in order to improve everything as much as you can.
I myself haven't worked with SSAS yet but this is also a great tool but (imho) more for lots of different analysis.

SSAS cube from a flat table

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.

Efficient Ad-hoc SQL OLAP Structure

Over the years I have read a lot of people's opinions on how to get better performance out of their SQL (Microsoft SQL Server, just so we are all on the same page...) queries. However, they all seem to be tightly tied to either a high-performance OLTP setup or a data warehouse OLAP setup (cubes-galore...). However, my situation today is kind of in the middle of the 2, hence my indecision.
I have a general DB structure of [Contacts], [Sites], [SiteContacts] (the junction table of [Sites] and [Contacts]), [SiteTraits], and [ContractTraits]. I have nearly 3 million contacts with about 50 fields (between [Contacts] and [ContactTraits]) relating to just the contact, and about 600 thousand sites with about 150 fields (between [Sites] and [SiteTraits]) relating to just the sites. Basically it’s a pretty big flattened table or view… Most of the columns are int, bit, char(3), or short varchar(s). My problem is that a good portion of these columns are available to be used in ad-hoc queries by the user, and as quickly as possible because the main UI for this will be a website. I know the most common filters, but even with heavy indexing on them I think this will still be a beast… This data is read-only; the data doesn’t change at all during the day and the database will only be refreshed with the latest information during scheduled downtime. So I see this situation like an OLAP database with the read requirements of an OLTP database.
I see 3 options; 1. Break the table into smaller divisible units sub-query everything, 2. make one flat table and really go to town on the indexing 3. Create an OLAP cube and sub-query the rest based on what filter values I don’t put as the cube dimensions, and. I have not done much with OLAP cubes so I frankly don’t even know if that is an option, but from what I’ve done with them in the past I think it might be an option. Also, just to clarify what I mean when I say “sub-query everything” is instead of having a WHERE clause on the outer select, there would be one (if applicable) for each table being brought into the query and then the tables are INNER JOINed, to eliminate a really large Cartesian Product. As for the second option of the one large table, I have heard and seen conflicting results with that approach as it will save on joins but at the same time a table scan takes much longer.
Ideas anyone? Do I need to share what I’m smoking? I think this could turn into a pretty good discussion if everyone puts in their 2 cents. Oh, and feel free to tell me if I’m way off base with the OLAP cube idea if that’s the case, I’m new to that stuff too.
Thanks in advance to any and all opinions and help with this dilemma I’ve found myself in.

You may want to consider this as a relational data warehouse. You could design your relational database tables as a star schema (or, a snowflake schema). This design is very similar to the OLAP cube logical structure, but the physical structure is in the relational database.
In the star schema you would have one or more fact tables, which represent transactions of some sort and is usually associated with a date. I'm not sure what a transaction might be in this case though. The fact may be the association of sites to contacts and the table.
The fact table would reference dimension tables, which describe the fact. Dimensions might be Sites and Contacts. A dimension contains attributes, such as contact name, contact address, etc. If you are familiar with the OLAP cube, then this will be a familiar logical architecture.
It wouldn't be a very big problem to add numerous indexes to your architecture. The database is mostly read only, except for the refresh time. You won't have to worry about read performance while indexes are being updated. So, the architecture can accommodate all indexes that are needed (as long as you can dedicate enough downtime to refresh the data).

I agree with bobs answer: throw an OLAP front end and query through the cube. The reason why this will be a good think is that cubes are highly efficient at querying (often precomputed) aggregates by multiple dimensions and they store the data in a column-oriented format that is more efficient for data analysis.
The relational data underneath the cube will be great for detail drill-ins to find the individual facts that give a certain aggregate value. But querying directly the relational data will always be slow, because those aggregates users are interested in for analysis can only be produced by scanning large amounts of data. OLAP is just better at this.

OLAP/SSAS is efficient for aggregate queries, not as much for granular data in my experience.
What are the most common queries? For single pieces of data or aggregates?

If the granularity of SiteContacts is pretty close to that of Contacts (ie. circa 3 million records - most contacts associated with only a single site), you may get the best performance out of a single table (with plenty of appropriate indexes, obviously; partitioning should also be considered).
On the other hand, if most contacts are associated with many sites, it might be better to stick with something close to your current schema.
OLAP tends to produce the best results on aggregated data - it sounds as though there will be relatively little aggregation carried out on this data.
Star schemas consist of fact tables with dimensions hanging off them - depending on the relationship between Sites and Contacts, it sounds as though you either have one huge dimension table, or two large dimensions with a factless fact table (sounds like an oxymoron, but is covered in Kimball's methodology) linking them.