so. I am doing this whole Reporting Services w/MDX thing; and it is going
REALLLLLLLY slow

I'm really thinking about changing my cube to ROLAP 100% and then reporting
on the aggregate tables directly thru reporting services; and basically
skipping this whole MDX tier.

Am I crazy?

I just see some aggregations that are pretty close to what I need:

select * FROM FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_F
select * FROM FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_R
select * FROM FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_I
select * FROM FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_U
select * FROM FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_L
select * FROM FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_G
select * FROM FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_S
select * FROM FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_J
select * FROM FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_V
select * FROM FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_M
select * FROM FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_FINANCIAL_TRANSACTIONS_H


the only problem with this that I see is that when we add a dimension; or
something along those lines-- i expect this _WHOLE_ naming convention to
change; right?

Is there any way to control in ROLAP exactly what aggregates go into which
table?

-Aaron
Exhausted from trying RS with MDX

A simple sanity check - do the MDX queries perform properly outside of
Reporting Services (in MDX Sample App, etc)? If not, then maybe it's not
just an RS w/MDX issue...


- Deepak

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

I just don't think that this language is usable, per se-- until Microsoft
comes out with a GUI.

I mean; OWC and Excel Pivot Tables are SOOOOOOOOOO wonderful.

And MDX/RS is a TOTAL pain.

I just really had hoped that this MDX thing was going to work; but as it is;
it is just a total waste of effort.

Why can't Microsoft come out with their SQL2005 toolset and make it
compatable with SQL 2000?



"Deepak Puri" <deepak_puri (AT) progressive (DOT) com> wrote