 |
|||||
|
As of December 1, 2020, Focal Point is retired and repurposed as a reference repository. We value the wealth of knowledge that's been shared here over the years. You'll continue to have access to this treasure trove of knowledge, for search purposes only. Join the TIBCO Community
Former myibi community members should have received an email on 8/3/22 to activate their user accounts to join the community. Check your Spam folder for the email. Please get in touch with us at community@tibco.com for further assistance. Reference the community FAQ to learn more about the community. | |||||
Focal Point 
Focal Point Forums Performance Management Framework (PMF) Measure load mismatch with dimension
Focal Point Forums Performance Management Framework (PMF) Measure load mismatch with dimension Read-Only TopicGo | Search | Notify | Tools |
| Measure load mismatch with dimension | Login/Join |
| Guru |
Hi, I have an issue with my measure load that I don't understand. When I do a preview I get a very large number of mismatched records on one dimension (1000+) BUT when I do a Match File Old-Nor-New, I only get 4 mismatched records. Is there a simple explanation to how this can happen? Are there steps I can follow to determine what I'm doing wrong? PS. When I take out the troubled dimension from the measure load then it reconciles correctly, but not when the dimension is included. Thanks for any help. Greg current client: WF 8.1.05 & 8.2 - Windows 7 64bit - Tomcat 7 - MRE / BID - IE11 local: WF 8.2 - Windows 7 64bit - Tomcat 6 - MRE / BID - FOCUS - IE11 PMF 8 | ||
|
| Master |
Without more info it's hard to tell. Try doing a JOIN instead of a MATCH. The measure loader does a JOIN of the key field loaded for the dimension to the key field for the measure which you specify on the Dimensions tab in the Measure loader. It's possible that there's a length difference on the keys that's causing the issue, or that significant chars are different. The issue could also be spaces. What USAGEs are set for the key fields on the two tables? Is one an A20V and the other an A20? V would truncate the values and the other would be space-padded, which would cause mismatches. Bob Jude Ferrante Director of Business and Development WebFOCUS Performance Management Bob_Ferrante@ibi.com 917-339-5105 I'll take any questions about PMF - business or technical - anytime! | |||
|
| Guru |
Thanks, Bob, for the information and insite. My Match File is strictly for reconciliation. I use a Join in my Prefix code to filter the data prior to the measure load. Most keys are P4 except one that is P2. What other approaches would you suggest? Thanks. current client: WF 8.1.05 & 8.2 - Windows 7 64bit - Tomcat 7 - MRE / BID - IE11 local: WF 8.2 - Windows 7 64bit - Tomcat 6 - MRE / BID - FOCUS - IE11 PMF 8 | |||
|
| Master |
So the keys are Packed format? Do they have to be? I'd assume that packed - which is essentially a mainframe data format - is going to be problematic in this milieu. Try using a fixed-format alpha - and make sure the fields are the same length on both sides. With those we get our best results. Are these FOCUS databases on both sides - the dimension and measure source? I'd assume so, if you're using Packed... Bob Jude Ferrante Director of Business and Development WebFOCUS Performance Management Bob_Ferrante@ibi.com 917-339-5105 I'll take any questions about PMF - business or technical - anytime! | |||
|
| Guru |
The packed fields are from the tables in our data mart and were generated by the synonym builder. current client: WF 8.1.05 & 8.2 - Windows 7 64bit - Tomcat 7 - MRE / BID - IE11 local: WF 8.2 - Windows 7 64bit - Tomcat 6 - MRE / BID - FOCUS - IE11 PMF 8 | |||
|
| Master |
Can they be set to a different USAGE? I don't think P format will work properly as a JOIN field for the loader. Bob Jude Ferrante Director of Business and Development WebFOCUS Performance Management Bob_Ferrante@ibi.com 917-339-5105 I'll take any questions about PMF - business or technical - anytime! | |||
|
| Guru |
Bob: Are Packed fields are an issue for keys? Thanks. current client: WF 8.1.05 & 8.2 - Windows 7 64bit - Tomcat 7 - MRE / BID - IE11 local: WF 8.2 - Windows 7 64bit - Tomcat 6 - MRE / BID - FOCUS - IE11 PMF 8 | |||
|
| Master |
Yes. Thought the previous response was crystal clear. Does it bear further explanation? OK. What values are in the fields? Are they supposed to be numeric or alpha? Packed is for numeric only. We - in our doc - say best use is alphanumeric. Why? With alphanumeric you always have uniform alignment. WebFOCUS does funny things with alignment in numeric fields - so the problem could simply be that the number is right-aligned on one side with space padding to the left, and left-aligned on the other with space padding to the right. Even though the values match once you trim out the spaces, you get a nomatch on a JOIN because the JOIN is so exact in WebFOCUS, it's not forgiving of different alignments of spaces. If you are going to key this way, you'd need to force the usage either by using DEFINES in the masters or by changing the USAGE. Make sense? Bob Jude Ferrante Director of Business and Development WebFOCUS Performance Management Bob_Ferrante@ibi.com 917-339-5105 I'll take any questions about PMF - business or technical - anytime! | |||
|
| Guru |
OOPS, I missed your response. Yes, it makes sense. Thanks again. I will approach the load with this in mind. current client: WF 8.1.05 & 8.2 - Windows 7 64bit - Tomcat 7 - MRE / BID - IE11 local: WF 8.2 - Windows 7 64bit - Tomcat 6 - MRE / BID - FOCUS - IE11 PMF 8 | |||
|
| Guru |
As a follow-up: The issue was not that the keys were packed fields. The issue here was an incorrect dimension definition. All keys are packed and there are now no mismatched records on the measure load. current client: WF 8.1.05 & 8.2 - Windows 7 64bit - Tomcat 7 - MRE / BID - IE11 local: WF 8.2 - Windows 7 64bit - Tomcat 6 - MRE / BID - FOCUS - IE11 PMF 8 | |||
|
| Member |
I, too, find myself creating reconciliation programs to determine my #mismatched preview records. Is there any possibility of adding the JOINed key fields to the preview screen to aid the reconciliation step? "Oh, yeah, I know that value is not in my dimension, and I'm not concerned about those mismatches." WF 765 WINTEL Tomcat PMF 42 SAP SQLServer | |||
|
| Master |
Good suggestion. We'll consider it... it sounds like a useful capability to add. Bob Jude Ferrante Director of Business and Development WebFOCUS Performance Management Bob_Ferrante@ibi.com 917-339-5105 I'll take any questions about PMF - business or technical - anytime! | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Read-Only TopicFocal Point Focal Point Forums Performance Management Framework (PMF) Measure load mismatch with dimension
Focal Point Forums Performance Management Framework (PMF) Measure load mismatch with dimensionCopyright © 1996-2020 Information Builders
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |