Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
CSchmidtCombe
Starting Member
2 Posts |
 Posted - 2009-06-19 : 09:05:52
|
| We are weighing the pros and cons of building one huge "Operations" cube as opposed to building a handful of cubes and then creating a linked cube to bring them all together. For example, our existing Forecast cube uses the InventoryFact table for a measure group. A proposed Manufacturing cube will use the same InventoryFact table, but the manufacturing data is not necessarily directly related to the Forecast cube data elements. However, we can see the potential of having both data elements on a report some day. We are trying to answer the question, is it better to have one huge cube containing all the measure groups and dimensions or a few smaller cubes connected together with a linked cube. Can someone please give us their opinion or share their experiences?FYI - We are using SQL 2008 and have not built a linked cube before. We do however have other cubes in production in separate databases not necessarily related to this project.Thanks |
|
|
CSchmidtCombe
Starting Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 2009-06-19 : 11:25:09
|
| I figured out why I was having difficulty getting information about linked cubes in SQL Server 2008. Linked Cubes are a discontinued feature in SQL Server 2008. Now available are linked measure groups and linked dimensions. From what I've read, there seems to be a downside to using them. Thanks Anyway |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Should we use a linked cube?