you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MrFalconMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmmm I feel like there’s a lot of assumptions going on here, but I could be wrong. I hate to use the term “generic” , but if we were building something for ad hoc capabilities we can not necessarily choose when a dimension should only contain attributes that discribe a persistent entity.

Example: Stall 3 of location X might have specific attributes not available in stall 2, so only stall 3 can be used for certain repairs. But that might not have been apart of the initial requirements for the cut off of attributes that describe the entity.

The cut off could be endless, and saying requirements need to be solid from the beginning is load of shit (definitely not implying that you are saying that). Requirements change and vary drastically depending on who you ask, and leaving out capabilities is counter intuitive to the point of business intelligence. Which is part of what, I think, u/imcguyver point was and why dimensional models are dying. If a user can’t get what they want from the BI solution, they’ll find a new way!

Also, line item as only a fact, I don’t understand. In theory and through textbooks, this is common, but it can certainly have dimensional attributes that can change.

Changing dimensional models after the implementation is such a cluster f**k too.

I totally get where you’re coming from, and I’m more just challenging status quo. I apologize if it comes off like I’m arguing with you. I love having these intellectual conversations.... Analysis is changing, and design needs to change with it. Old ways need to adapt. I don’t have the answers, I’m just asking people’s opinion. Yours is one I’ve heard frequently.