degenerate dimension and partitioning

I needed to provide drill down to some granular attributes, so I setup a degenerate dimension with several attributes like serial_number, etc. Doing so has somewhat understandably caused my processing time to increase from 2 minutes to 45 minutes for my sample set of data.

To handle this increased processing time, I'm attempting to use partitioning. Now, the trouble I'm running into is how do I process the degenerate dimension in step with the partitions. I am getting errors from the process that boil down to fact_key does not exist in the degenerate dimension so the fact can not be joined to the fact dimension table. How do I process a degenerate dimension in step with my partitions. Does that make sense?

Keehan

Try to see where most of the time of your processing goes. Try to process dimensions and partitions separately.

Is processing partitions becomes way slower? Or it is dimension processing that takes most of the time?

Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

|||

The same question.

If we use 12 partitions, and set 12 fact table to them, how about the fact dimention? it will get new members from diffrent fact tables by itself correctly?

degenerate dimension and partitioning

I needed to provide drill down to some granular attributes, so I setup a degenerate dimension with several attributes like serial_number, etc. Doing so has somewhat understandably caused my processing time to increase from 2 minutes to 45 minutes for my sample set of data.

To handle this increased processing time, I'm attempting to use partitioning. Now, the trouble I'm running into is how do I process the degenerate dimension in step with the partitions. I am getting errors from the process that boil down to fact_key does not exist in the degenerate dimension so the fact can not be joined to the fact dimension table. How do I process a degenerate dimension in step with my partitions. Does that make sense?

Keehan

Try to see where most of the time of your processing goes. Try to process dimensions and partitions separately.

Is processing partitions becomes way slower? Or it is dimension processing that takes most of the time?

Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

|||

The same question.

If we use 12 partitions, and set 12 fact table to them, how about the fact dimention? it will get new members from diffrent fact tables by itself correctly?

Defragmenting Data Files

Hello all,
Will data/log files be defragmented by Windows Defrag even if they are still
attached?
Thanks for any help anyone can provide,
Conan KellyConan Kelly wrote:
> Hello all,
> Will data/log files be defragmented by Windows Defrag even if they are sti
ll attached?
>
Nope... You have to stop SQL Server, or detach the database.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Tracy,
Thanks for the help,
Conan
"Tracy McKibben" <tracy@.realsqlguy.com> wrote in message news:44EDEAF8.80705@.realsqlguy.com.
.
> Conan Kelly wrote:
> Nope... You have to stop SQL Server, or detach the database.
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com|||I don't know for sure if that is true for the Windows defragger but
certainly not for things like DiskKeeper. I am pretty sure that the windows
defragger was based on DiskKeepers technology so I suspect it may be true
for that as well. The makers of DiskKeeper vividly state that their tool
will defrag sql server files even if the server is live. Not that I am
recommending that practice but it is certainly possible.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Tracy McKibben" <tracy@.realsqlguy.com> wrote in message
news:44EDEAF8.80705@.realsqlguy.com...
> Conan Kelly wrote:
> Nope... You have to stop SQL Server, or detach the database.
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> I don't know for sure if that is true for the Windows defragger but
> certainly not for things like DiskKeeper. I am pretty sure that the windo
ws
> defragger was based on DiskKeepers technology so I suspect it may be true
> for that as well. The makers of DiskKeeper vividly state that their tool
> will defrag sql server files even if the server is live. Not that I am
> recommending that practice but it is certainly possible.
>
Yeah, I know they claim that, but the thought of something manipulating
my database files WHILE THEY'RE BEING USED, just scares me a bit. Seems
very risky to me.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||I hear you man.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Tracy McKibben" <tracy@.realsqlguy.com> wrote in message
news:44F2EBEB.10703@.realsqlguy.com...
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> Yeah, I know they claim that, but the thought of something manipulating my
> database files WHILE THEY'RE BEING USED, just scares me a bit. Seems very
> risky to me.
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com

Defragmenting Data Files

Hello all,
Will data/log files be defragmented by Windows Defrag even if they are still attached?
--
Thanks for any help anyone can provide,
Conan KellyConan Kelly wrote:
> Hello all,
> Will data/log files be defragmented by Windows Defrag even if they are still attached?
>
Nope... You have to stop SQL Server, or detach the database.
--
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Tracy,
Thanks for the help,
Conan
"Tracy McKibben" <tracy@.realsqlguy.com> wrote in message news:44EDEAF8.80705@.realsqlguy.com...
> Conan Kelly wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> Will data/log files be defragmented by Windows Defrag even if they are still attached?
> Nope... You have to stop SQL Server, or detach the database.
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com|||I don't know for sure if that is true for the Windows defragger but
certainly not for things like DiskKeeper. I am pretty sure that the windows
defragger was based on DiskKeepers technology so I suspect it may be true
for that as well. The makers of DiskKeeper vividly state that their tool
will defrag sql server files even if the server is live. Not that I am
recommending that practice but it is certainly possible.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Tracy McKibben" <tracy@.realsqlguy.com> wrote in message
news:44EDEAF8.80705@.realsqlguy.com...
> Conan Kelly wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> Will data/log files be defragmented by Windows Defrag even if they are
>> still attached?
> Nope... You have to stop SQL Server, or detach the database.
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> I don't know for sure if that is true for the Windows defragger but
> certainly not for things like DiskKeeper. I am pretty sure that the windows
> defragger was based on DiskKeepers technology so I suspect it may be true
> for that as well. The makers of DiskKeeper vividly state that their tool
> will defrag sql server files even if the server is live. Not that I am
> recommending that practice but it is certainly possible.
>
Yeah, I know they claim that, but the thought of something manipulating
my database files WHILE THEY'RE BEING USED, just scares me a bit. Seems
very risky to me.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||I hear you man.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Tracy McKibben" <tracy@.realsqlguy.com> wrote in message
news:44F2EBEB.10703@.realsqlguy.com...
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> I don't know for sure if that is true for the Windows defragger but
>> certainly not for things like DiskKeeper. I am pretty sure that the
>> windows defragger was based on DiskKeepers technology so I suspect it may
>> be true for that as well. The makers of DiskKeeper vividly state that
>> their tool will defrag sql server files even if the server is live. Not
>> that I am recommending that practice but it is certainly possible.
> Yeah, I know they claim that, but the thought of something manipulating my
> database files WHILE THEY'RE BEING USED, just scares me a bit. Seems very
> risky to me.
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com