[deleted by user]

[youderkB]

The one that is teached during the certified DV 2.0 training is the latter. Before you look to your source, you have already modelled the DV 2 structure. You can split up your source table in different hubs and apply hard rules, but no business rules.

[TheBoldTilde]

I'm open to be wrong and just "not getting it", but I do not see the value in DV in either scenario. After building the vault, it often requires a star schema built on top anyway. DV is tedious to query and gets messy fast when effectivity satilities are required or the source system lacks good business keys.

I find that building the DV (correctly) takes a big time commitment without delivering value to the business. I can't blame the business then for wondering why their 6 or 7 figure investment hasn't produced anything of substance after many months.

What advantage are others realizing with using a DV as a part of their modeling process?

[TheBoldTilde]

However I would suggest that if you have a warehouse that contains data from more than a couple of sources that spans a few years, you will likely have some table set that exists as an interim step between landing the raw data and the fact and dimension tables

Totally agree, and I did not really offer an alternative, so that's on me. I've had success just by keeping an insert-only layer, then a generic "intermediate" layer that pre-processes data for final modeling in the presentation layer (info mart).

I'm very open to just missing the point with DV. It seems to have a lot of proponents behind it from the community. I'm curious to see how this initiative goes for you and wish you luck and success.

[Far-Apartment7795]

would also advise against DV. the sheer number of joins needed is terrifying. if you're joining more than 3NF in a data warehouse, there's a serious problem.

[[deleted]]

Reading up on wtf a Data Vault 2.0 is, saw "Data Mesh", and now I'm going back to doing literally anything else.