Aggregate integrity problems

Has anyone else had any problems with cubes showing incorrect aggregates?
For instance, the sales for a Quarter is showing twice the amount of the 3
months showing. As well, there are values associated to products (lowest
level in dimension) that should not be there. When I re-process the cubes,
the issues are eventually resolved but I feel that I cannot trust any numbers
that the cubes show now.
Thanks in advanceData Integrity starts at the souce and, once validated, is only maintained
through constraints.
The old adage applies here: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I'd look at the integrity constraints of the primary sources. If those look
intact, I'd attempt to run manual queries to aggregate the data to see if any
anomolies show up. Finally, if all looks well, the next time some
abnormality shows up in the cube, instead of reprocessing, I'd look at the
source first to see if you could manually replicate the numbers.
I have not seen what you are describing except where there were data errors
in the sources. But if you feel that all has been checked out, I would most
certainly open up a PSS case.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"fastforward" wrote:
> Has anyone else had any problems with cubes showing incorrect aggregates?
> For instance, the sales for a Quarter is showing twice the amount of the 3
> months showing. As well, there are values associated to products (lowest
> level in dimension) that should not be there. When I re-process the cubes,
> the issues are eventually resolved but I feel that I cannot trust any numbers
> that the cubes show now.
> Thanks in advance|||I agree, Garbage In, Garbage Out. I have experience more than I want to.
In this case however, the data is clean. It has been checked and double
checked. There are no problems with this set of data. Could this have
anything to do with how I have designed my aggregates or writeback issues?
"AnthonyThomas" wrote:
> Data Integrity starts at the souce and, once validated, is only maintained
> through constraints.
> The old adage applies here: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
> I'd look at the integrity constraints of the primary sources. If those look
> intact, I'd attempt to run manual queries to aggregate the data to see if any
> anomolies show up. Finally, if all looks well, the next time some
> abnormality shows up in the cube, instead of reprocessing, I'd look at the
> source first to see if you could manually replicate the numbers.
> I have not seen what you are describing except where there were data errors
> in the sources. But if you feel that all has been checked out, I would most
> certainly open up a PSS case.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> "fastforward" wrote:
> > Has anyone else had any problems with cubes showing incorrect aggregates?
> > For instance, the sales for a Quarter is showing twice the amount of the 3
> > months showing. As well, there are values associated to products (lowest
> > level in dimension) that should not be there. When I re-process the cubes,
> > the issues are eventually resolved but I feel that I cannot trust any numbers
> > that the cubes show now.
> >
> > Thanks in advance|||Data integrity is always issue number one but if you've checked that out,
then logic comes next. I'd run the aggregate process manually on a few
deminsions with normal T-SQL aggregates. Then, most certainly, I would
consider a more simple design for your cubes to see if the problem clears up.
If so, I'd add complexity, one layer at a time.
If you continue to run into aggregations issues, I would most certainly
consider contacting MS PSS.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"fastforward" wrote:
> I agree, Garbage In, Garbage Out. I have experience more than I want to.
> In this case however, the data is clean. It has been checked and double
> checked. There are no problems with this set of data. Could this have
> anything to do with how I have designed my aggregates or writeback issues?
> "AnthonyThomas" wrote:
> > Data Integrity starts at the souce and, once validated, is only maintained
> > through constraints.
> >
> > The old adage applies here: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
> >
> > I'd look at the integrity constraints of the primary sources. If those look
> > intact, I'd attempt to run manual queries to aggregate the data to see if any
> > anomolies show up. Finally, if all looks well, the next time some
> > abnormality shows up in the cube, instead of reprocessing, I'd look at the
> > source first to see if you could manually replicate the numbers.
> >
> > I have not seen what you are describing except where there were data errors
> > in the sources. But if you feel that all has been checked out, I would most
> > certainly open up a PSS case.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> > Anthony Thomas
> >
> >
> > "fastforward" wrote:
> >
> > > Has anyone else had any problems with cubes showing incorrect aggregates?
> > > For instance, the sales for a Quarter is showing twice the amount of the 3
> > > months showing. As well, there are values associated to products (lowest
> > > level in dimension) that should not be there. When I re-process the cubes,
> > > the issues are eventually resolved but I feel that I cannot trust any numbers
> > > that the cubes show now.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance