|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 13, 2013 5:00 PM
Points: 172,
Visits: 446
|
|
Yes, except that my question is
Has anyone else had a similar problem and solved it with something other than slowly changing dimension?
I will create a model of this environment and use it to make concrete headway...I think at this point I need to provide some ddl for there to be a concrete way to help me! But, thanks for your ideas
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Dedicated
           
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:25 AM
Points: 32,893,
Visits: 26,766
|
|
polkadot (3/22/2013)
Yes, except that my question is Has anyone else had a similar problem and solved it with something other than slowly changing dimension? I will create a model of this environment and use it to make concrete headway...I think at this point I need to provide some ddl for there to be a concrete way to help me! But, thanks for your ideas
No. I don't believe anyone has been able to solve the problem without SCDs other than making a copy of the whole hierarchy. Of course, that's not a bad idea either. Except for the MLM world and huge parts houses, even fairly large hierarchies don't take up much room.
I'll also say that I believe you're making a performance mistake by using recursion rather than storing a nice, tight Nested Sets hierarchy. See the article I pointed you to as to why.
--Jeff Moden "RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code: Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."
For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, click on the following... http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
For better answers on performance questions, click on the following... http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 13, 2013 5:00 PM
Points: 172,
Visits: 446
|
|
OK, will do. I've got a few more points of reference then I did when you first directed me to that article. So, I'm heading in the direction to ingest and make sense of:
"I'd like to recommend a different approach to hierarchies. Please see the following 2 articles... http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Hierarchy/94040/ http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/94570/"
|
|
|
|