Inconsistent roll up behavior in a PerformancePoint grid object - ssas

I have a basic dashboard which consists of a single "grid" object displaying 3 measures across time broken up by a business unit hierarchy...
When filtering on a single item in any of the levels in the business unit hierarchy, everything rolls up correctly...
However, when I filter on more than one item in the same level, the rolled up values are no longer based on visual totals...
In the image above, the values in the "All" row represent values for the entire unfiltered business unit hierarchy. It would be ideal if the grid rolled up as if "VisualTotals" was enabled...regardless of the filter selection. In that case, for the second image above, I would expect the values in the "All" row to look like...
PO E-PO Count = 3531 (497 + 3034)
PO Count = 7923 (2094 + 5829)
I've considered using the VisualTotals() MDX function, but I'd prefer not to customize the query because I read somewhere that it reduces the end users' ability to dill up/down/across.

Turns out this is just how PPS works. I ended up using profiler to capture the MDX being generated in both scenarios and PPS uses a calculated member to aggregate the multi-select (instead of using SUBSELECTs like Excel) so when the ROWS level is pieced together with the HIERARCHIZE function, you get the effect of non-visual totals...
WITH MEMBER [Business Unit].[Segment Division Plant].[ Aggregation] AS
Aggregate
(
{
[Business Unit].[Segment Division Plant].[Plant].&[PAK]&[FLG]&[2520]
,[Business Unit].[Segment Division Plant].[Plant].&[PAK]&[FLG]&[2504]
}
)
,SOLVE_ORDER = 0
SELECT
...<snip>...
Hierarchize
(
{
[Business Unit].[Division Plant].[All]
,Descendants
(
[Business Unit].[Division Plant].[All],
,AFTER
)
}
) ON ROWS
...<snap>...
If it used a SUBSELECT like Excel the behavior represent VisualTotals and the MDX would look like the following...
FROM
(
SELECT
{
[Business Unit].[Segment Division Plant].[Plant].&[PAK]&[FLG]&[2504]
,[Business Unit].[Segment Division Plant].[Plant].&[PAK]&[FLG]&[2520]
} ON COLUMNS
FROM [<cube name>]
)

Related

icCube MDX on distinct count in relation to same dimension in axis or filter

I have the following MDX statement on the $Monitoring cube:
WITH
MEMBER [Measures].[Unique Users] AS distinctcount(([User].[User].[User L].members
, [Measures].[Open Report Count])),format_string="#,#0"
SELECT
NON EMPTY { {[Measures].[Unique Users],[Measures].[Open Report Count]} } ON COLUMNS,
NON EMPTY { [Time].[Time].[Day L] } ON ROWS
FROM ( SELECT
{ lag(strtomember("[Time].[Time].["+right("0"+str(day(SchemaRefreshTime())),2) +"-"+ right("0"+str(month(SchemaRefreshTime())),2) + "-"+str(year(SchemaRefreshTime()))+ "]"), 6):strtomember("[Time].[Time].["+right("0"+str(day(SchemaRefreshTime())),2) +"-"+ right("0"+str(month(SchemaRefreshTime())),2) + "-"+str(year(SchemaRefreshTime()))+ "]") } ON 0 FROM [$Monitoring])
/*ic3navigation*/
axis 1 NON EMPTY order(nonempty(Descendants([Report].[Report], ,leaves),[Open Report Count]),[Open Report Count],desc)
FILTERBY /*ic3*/ {[Time].[Time].[ALL].&[2015].&[2015-11-27].&[27-11-2015]}
FILTERBY /*ic3*/ {[User].[User].[All Users].&[<user>]}
*) change <user> with the actual user name
*) the ...lag.. formula is used to give the last 7 days based on schema refresh time
***) this MDX query can be run on any $Monitoring cube if you have filled in an existing user
I would expect the distinctcount function to take into account the FILTERBY. So the result should be 1 (there is just one user selected). The strange thing is, that it does not. It shows more than one user, so I assume the FILTERBY on users is not taken into account for the distinctcount.
The same thing happens when I move the FILTER BY to the AXIS or to the ROWS or COLUMNS.
Is this a bug or is this something how MDX/ MDX++ works in icCube?
Please advise.
It's the expected behaviour. Welcome to advanced MDX !
A FilterBy is exactly the same as a sub-select.
Members are not filtered by a subselect or a where clause in a calculated members.
In a calculated member, a tuple that defines a hierarchy will 'overwrite' the one defined in a subquery or where clause.
------ UPDATE ------
If you want to filter the set with the where clause/subselect you've the EXISTING operator.
MEMBER [Measures].[Unique Users] AS count( Existing [User].[User].[User L].members),format_string="#,#0"
if you want only users with data for the cell tuple :
MEMBER [Measures].[Unique Users] AS count( nonempty( Existing [User].[User].[User L].members, [Measures].[Open Report Count])),format_string="#,#0"
If you've a large number of users I'd advise adding a measure [Distinct Users] that is a distinct count on the user id. This way you avoid all complexity that we're facing here.

Easiest way to programmatically generate MDX rowcount query?

Right now I'm dealing with a program that can generate and return SQL or MDX queries (depending on the source database of the queries). I'm working on adding a feature that counts all the rows returned by a given query.
Now, I have some small background with SQL, so I was able to parse table names and generate a rowcount. However, MDX is a completely new beast for me.
In SQL, I'm creating:
SELECT
COUNT(SUM)
AS ROWS
FROM
(
COUNT(*) AS COUNT FROM TABLE1
UNION ALL
COUNT(*) AS COUNT FROM TABLE2
UNION ALL
COUNT(*) AS COUNT FROM TABLE3
ETC...
)
Now, what I'm wondering is, how would I do something similar with MDX? I've done some reading on MDX, and from what I gathered the basic notation is
[Dimension].[Hierarchy].[Level]
Now with SQL, I parsed the table names out of a larger generated query and simply inserted them into a new programmatically generated query. What would I have to grab from a larger MDX query to generate my own rowcounting query and sending it off to run? A simpler example of the MDX I'm dealing with would be:
WITH
MEMBER [BUSINESS1].[XQE_RS_CM1] AS '([BUSINESS1].[COMPANY_H].[all])', SOLVE_ORDER = 8
MEMBER [BUSINESS2].[XQE_RS_CM0] AS '([BUSINESS2].[all])', SOLVE_ORDER = 4
SELECT
NON EMPTY {[BUSINESS2].[ALL_TIME_H].[CALENDAR_YEAR_L].MEMBERS AS [XQE_SA1] , HEAD({[BUSINESS2].[XQE_RS_CM0]}, COUNT(HEAD([XQE_SA1]), INCLUDEEMPTY))} DIMENSION PROPERTIES PARENT_LEVEL, PARENT_UNIQUE_NAME ON AXIS(0),
NON EMPTY {[BUSINESS1].[COMPANY_H].[COMPANY_CD__L].MEMBERS AS [XQE_SA0] , HEAD({[BUSINESS1].[XQE_RS_CM1]}, COUNT(HEAD([XQE_SA0]), INCLUDEEMPTY))} DIMENSION PROPERTIES PARENT_LEVEL, PARENT_UNIQUE_NAME ON AXIS(1),
NON EMPTY {[Measures].[Measures].[BUSINESS3]} DIMENSION PROPERTIES PARENT_LEVEL, PARENT_UNIQUE_NAME ON AXIS(2)
FROM
[SOURCE] CELL PROPERTIES CELL_ORDINAL, FORMAT_STRING, VALUE
Any insight would be awesome, thanks.
At first glance your script looks reasonable then after unravelling it becomes a bit(!) more complex.
The main difference between this and other scripts is its use of axis(2). In a sub-select extra dimensions are often used but this is a little odd as most clients can't handle 3 dimensional cellsets - so I'm intrigued by what is consuming this info?
Also the member [BUSINESS1].[XQE_RS_CM1] is a single member as is [BUSINESS2].[XQE_RS_CM0] so what is the point of the sections HEAD... ?
WITH
MEMBER [BUSINESS1].[XQE_RS_CM1] AS
([BUSINESS1].[COMPANY_H].[all]), SOLVE_ORDER = 8
MEMBER [BUSINESS2].[XQE_RS_CM0] AS
([BUSINESS2].[all]), SOLVE_ORDER = 4
SELECT
NON EMPTY
{[BUSINESS2].[ALL_TIME_H].[CALENDAR_YEAR_L].MEMBERS AS [XQE_SA1]
,HEAD(
{[BUSINESS2].[XQE_RS_CM0]},
COUNT(
HEAD([XQE_SA1])
,INCLUDEEMPTY
)
)}
ON AXIS(0),
NON EMPTY
{[BUSINESS1].[COMPANY_H].[COMPANY_CD__L].MEMBERS AS [XQE_SA0]
,HEAD(
{[BUSINESS1].[XQE_RS_CM1]},
COUNT(
HEAD([XQE_SA0])
,INCLUDEEMPTY
)
)}
ON AXIS(1),
NON EMPTY
{
[Measures].[Measures].[BUSINESS3]
}
ON AXIS(2)
FROM
[SOURCE]
Does the following return the same data as the original script?
SELECT
NON EMPTY
{
[BUSINESS2].[ALL_TIME_H].[CALENDAR_YEAR_L].MEMBERS
,[BUSINESS2].[all]
}
ON 0,
NON EMPTY
{
[BUSINESS1].[COMPANY_H].[COMPANY_CD__L].MEMBERS
,[BUSINESS1].[COMPANY_H].[all]
}
ON 1
FROM [SOURCE]
WHERE [Measures].[Measures].[BUSINESS3];
All you need to calculate then is the count of members returned in the following set on the rows:
{
[BUSINESS1].[COMPANY_H].[COMPANY_CD__L].MEMBERS
,[BUSINESS1].[COMPANY_H].[all]
}

Arbitrarily picking a dimension to add members to

The following script gives exactly the result I want.
It feels like a hack as I've added the custom members VALUE and VALUE_MTD onto the hierarchy [Customer].[Country]. I've chosen this hierarchy arbitrarily - just not used [Measures] or [Date].[Calendar] as they are already in use.
Is there a more standard approach to returning exactly the same set of cells?
WITH
MEMBER [Customer].[Country].[VALUE] AS
Aggregate([Customer].[Country].[(All)].MEMBERS)
MEMBER [Customer].[Country].[VALUE_MTD] AS
Aggregate
(
PeriodsToDate
(
[Date].[Calendar].[Month]
,[Date].[Calendar].CurrentMember
)
,[Customer].[Country].[VALUE]
)
SELECT
{
[Customer].[Country].[VALUE]
,[Customer].[Country].[VALUE_MTD]
} ON 0
,NON EMPTY
{
[Measures].[Internet Sales Amount]
,[Measures].[Internet Order Quantity]
}
*
Descendants
(
{
[Date].[Calendar].[Month].&[2007]&[12]
:
[Date].[Calendar].[Month].&[2008]&[01]
}
,[Date].[Calendar].[Date]
) ON 1
FROM [Adventure Works];
The standard approach is called utility dimension. If you Google this term, you will find several descriptions of this approach. A "utility dimension" is one which does not reference any data, but is just added to the cube for the purpose of being able to cross join them with all other dimensions for calculations. You can have one or more of them.
Thus, in most cases, physically there is nothing in the dimension. It is just used for calculated members. (Depending on the implementation, you may have the attribute members defined physically, if you want to have some properties for them. But then, only the default member is referenced in the star schema from the fact tables. The attribute member values are then overwritten in the calculation script.)
Typical applications for this are time calculations like YTD, MTD, MAT (Moving Annual Total, i. e. a full year of data ending in the selected date), or comparisons like growth vs. a previous period.

MDX - Is it possible to have two unrelated dimension members in one row?

I need to create the table of the following structure in MDX (to be used in SSRS report):
For that I have 2 dimensions and one measure:
Option dimension, with option type and option value attributes
Standard dimension, with IsStandard flag
Price measure
In first column I need to show all option type attributes,
in second all value attributes where IsStandard flag is set to [Y],
in third values chosen by user in parameters and
in fourth prices for components selected by user.
Is it possible to do the above in single MDX? Or will I be better off creating 2 distinct queries and creating 2 tables for them?
EDIT: Since my updates won't fit into the comment, I will add some thoughts here.
EXISTS function from answer below does not filter the result set, I don't get standard values but all possible values concatenated. When I issue the following code:
SELECT
[Measures].[Price] ON 0,
NON EMPTY [Option].[Option Type].children
*
[Option].[Option Value].children ON 1
FROM [Cube]
WHERE
(
[Standard].[IsStandard].&[Y],
[Configurations].[Configuration].&[conf1]
)
It returns the default values correctly, but if I use
SELECT
[Measures].[Price] ON 0,
[Option].[Option Type].children
*
EXISTS(
[Option].[Option Value].[Option Value].members
,([Standard].[IsStandard].&[Y],[Configurations].[Configuration].&[conf1])
) ON 1
FROM [Cube]
It does not filter the results.
If you can accept a slightly different order of columns, then this can be done in MDX, using a calculated measure which is actually a string (as you want to see a list of attributes values in column). This avoids having the same attribute twice in the rows:
WITH Member Measures.[Standard Value] AS
Generate(NonEmpty([Option].[Option Type].[Option Type].Members,
{([Standard].[IsStandard].&[Y],
Measure‌​s.[Price]
)}
),
[Option].[Option value].CurrentMember.Name,
", "
)
SELECT { Measures.[Standard Value], Measures.[Price] }
ON COLUMNS,
NON EMPTY
[Option].[Option Type].[Option Type].Members
*
{ #chosenValues } // the parameters value should be a comma separated list like "[Option].[Option value].[AMD], [Option].[Option value].[INTEL]"
ON ROWS
FROM [Your Cube]
WHERE [Configurations].[Configuration].&[conf1]
You can adapt the list separator (the last argument of the Generate function) to anything you like.
And in case there is more than one measure group that is related to the dimensions [Option], [Standard], and [Configurations], you should add the name of the measure group to use for determining the relationship as additional last parameter to the Exists, so that you and not the engine determines that. Just use the name of the measure group in either single or double quotes.
Yes it is, dimension will just be ignored. This is assuming you've all in the same schema / cube.
Note, depending on the OLAP Server you're using it's possible you've to change a flag that sends an error if you're using a dimensions that is not defined at Measure Group level.

MDX - Count of Filtered CROSSJOIN - Performance Issues

BACKGROUND: I've been using MDX for a bit but I am by no means an expert at it - looking for some performance help. I'm working on a set of "Number of Stores Authorized / In-Stock / Selling / Etc" calculated measures (MDX) in a SQL Server Analysis Services 2012 Cube. I had these calculations performing well originally, but discovered that they weren't aggregating across my product hierarchy the way I needed them to. The two hierarchies predominantly used in this report are Business -> Item and Division -> Store.
For example, in the original MDX calcs the Stores In-Stock measure would perform correctly at the "Item" level but wouldn't roll up a proper sum to the "Business" level above it. At the business level, we want to see the total number of store/product combinations in-stock, not a distinct or MAX value as it appeared to do originally.
ORIGINAL QUERY RESULTS: Here's an example of it NOT working correctly (imagine this is an Excel Pivot Table):
[FILTER: CURRENT WEEK DAYS]
[BUSINESS] [AUTH. STORES] [STORES IN-STOCK] [% OF STORES IN STOCK]
[+] Business One 2,416 2,392 99.01%
[-] Business Two 2,377 2,108 93.39%
-Item 1 2,242 2,094 99.43%
-Item 2 2,234 1,878 84.06%
-Item 3 2,377 2,108 88.68%
-Item N ... ... ...
FIXED QUERY RESULTS: After much trial and error, I switched to using a filtered count of a CROSSJOIN() of the two hierarchies using the DESCENDANTS() function, which yielded the correct numbers (below):
[FILTER: CURRENT WEEK DAYS]
[BUSINESS] [AUTH. STORES] [STORES IN-STOCK] [% OF STORES IN STOCK]
[+] Business One 215,644 149,301 93.90%
[-] Business Two 86,898 55,532 83.02%
-Item 1 2,242 2,094 99.43%
-Item 2 2,234 1,878 99.31%
-Item 3 2,377 2,108 99.11%
-Item N ... ... ...
QUERY THAT NEEDS HELP: Here is the "new" query that yields the results above:
CREATE MEMBER CURRENTCUBE.[Measures].[Num Stores In-Stock]
AS COUNT(
FILTER(
CROSSJOIN(
DESCENDANTS(
[Product].[Item].CURRENTMEMBER,
[Product].[Item].[UPC]
),
DESCENDANTS(
[Division].[Store].CURRENTMEMBER,
[Division].[Store].[Store ID]
)
),
[Measures].[Inventory Qty] > 0
)
),
FORMAT_STRING = "#,#",
NON_EMPTY_BEHAVIOR = { [Inventory Qty] },
This query syntax is used in a bunch of other "Number of Stores Selling / Out of Stock / Etc."-type calculated measures in the cube, with only a variation to the [Inventory Qty] condition at the bottom or by chaining additional conditions.
In its current condition, this query can take 2-3 minutes to run which is way too long for the audience of this reporting. Can anyone think of a way to reduce the query load or help me rewrite this to be more efficient?
Thank you!
UPDATE 2/24/2014: We solved this issue by bypassing a lot of the MDX involved and adding flag values to our named query in the DSV.
For example, instead of doing a filter command in the MDX code for "number of stores selling" - we simply added this to the fact table named query...
CASE WHEN [Sales Qty] > 0
THEN 1
ELSE NULL
END AS [Flag_Selling]
...then we simply aggregated these measures as LastNonEmpty in the cube. They roll up much faster than the full-on MDX queries.
It should be much faster to model your conditions into the cube, avoiding the slow Filter function:
If there are just a handful of conditions, add an attribute for each of them with two values, one for condition fulfilled, say "cond: yes", and one for condition not fulfilled, say "cond: no". You can define this in a view on the physical fact table, or in the DSV, or you can model it physically. These attributes can be added to the fact table directly, defining a dimension on the same table, or more cleanly as a separate dimension table referenced from the fact table. Then define your measure as
CREATE MEMBER CURRENTCUBE.[Measures].[Num Stores In-Stock]
AS COUNT(
CROSSJOIN(
DESCENDANTS(
[Product].[Item].CURRENTMEMBER,
[Product].[Item].[UPC]
),
DESCENDANTS(
[Division].[Store].CURRENTMEMBER,
[Division].[Store].[Store ID]
),
{ [Flag dim].[cond].[cond: yes] }
)
)
Possibly, you even could define the measure as a standard count measure of the fact table.
In case there are many conditions, it might make sense to add just a single attribute with one value for each condition as a many-to-many relationship. This will be slightly slower, but still faster than the Filter call.
I believe you can avoid the cross join as well as filter completely. Try using this:
CREATE MEMBER CURRENTCUBE.[Measures].[Num Stores In-Stock]
AS
CASE WHEN [Product].[Item Name].CURRENTMEMBER IS [Product].[Item Name].[All]
THEN
SUM(EXISTS([Product].[Item Name].[Item Name].MEMBERS,[Business].[Business Name].CURRENTMEMBER),
COUNT(
EXISTS(
[Division].[Store].[Store].MEMBERS,
(
[Business].[Business Name].CURRENTMEMBER,
[Product].[Item Name].CURRENTMEMBER
),
"Measure Group Name"
)
))
ELSE
COUNT(
EXISTS(
[Division].[Store].[Store].MEMBERS,
(
[Business].[Business Name].CURRENTMEMBER,
[Product].[Item Name].CURRENTMEMBER
),
"Measure Group Name"
)
)
END
I tried it using a dimension in my cube and using Area-Subsidiary hierarchy.
The case statement handles the situation of viewing data at Business level. Basically, the SUM() across all members of Item Names used in CASE statement calculates values for individual Item Names and then sums up all the values. I believe this is what you needed.