Is it always necessary to have one context per fact table?

I thought maybe folks would be interested in an update. I finally have redesigned this into a “proper multi-star schema”, each fact table in its own context, pulling dimension objects from the dimension tables, etc. Then I realized I needed to create universe formula objects that need to pull data between the fact tables. Well, of course they are in different contexts now, so they are incompatible. So I did research on the forum and found 5 options:

  1. Just leave the formulas at the report level (I don’t like this option since the users would have to recreate all these formulas for every report).
  2. Alias the fact tables and convolut the universe even more
    https://bobj-board.org/t/1355/4
  3. Create a view or aggregate table that does the join between the fact tables
  4. Create a join between the fact tables (I found this quite funny in a crazy way) https://bobj-board.org/t/31667/5
  5. Turn off the “Multiple SQL statements for each measure” - if you can guarantee that each record exists in all fact tables (which I can’t guarantee - so it stays on) https://bobj-board.org/t/7267/4

The ideal solution, that was proposed in 1999, would be a universe object that was evaluated at the client/report level. But I don’t think this exists. Hopefully it will in 6.5 - anyone know if it will?
So, at this point I believe option 1 is the only answer (especially since I redesigned this whole thing so that the fact tables would not be joined) for now and perhaps option 3 later.
Thanks,
Nile


Nile :us: (BOB member since 2004-02-12)