Re: Replacing fact table by partitioned view
From: Aaron W. West (tallpeak_at_hotmail.NO.SPAM)
Date: 06/07/04
- Next message: Aaron W. West: "Re: Transposing data"
- Previous message: Jéjé: "Re: hardware recommendation"
- In reply to: Dave Wickert [MSFT]: "Re: Replacing fact table by partitioned view"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 23:52:58 -0700
Much better to use numbers than names, eg. Sales200401, Sales200402
What if you had a reason to want to scan them in order? ORDER BY wouldn't
work with month names without some transformation.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Wickert [MSFT]" <dwickert@online.microsoft.com>
...
you can have a "Sales_2004_Feb" table and a
"Sales_2004_Mar" table, etc... and never form a full "Sales" table which has
all of your rows -- just keep them as monthly tables and load Analysis
Services partitions individually.
- Next message: Aaron W. West: "Re: Transposing data"
- Previous message: Jéjé: "Re: hardware recommendation"
- In reply to: Dave Wickert [MSFT]: "Re: Replacing fact table by partitioned view"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]