[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Between Peter, Joshua and the Cognos web pages,
I think I have the answer I am looking for.
Thanks guys! The question came up here as
part of an RFP for an intelligence system.
Note that OLAP is a $3.5 billion business.
OLAPs are thriving. Cognos makes the point that
a reason for OLAP is to address the problems
of using SQL. One builds a data warehouse
to get around the problems of using normalized
but non-performant relational designs.
An issue is the need to scrub the data and I
wondered if schemas have a role to play there,
then only tangentially how that fits with
the semantic web. Apples and oranges, apparently,
but intuitively, I saw connections between
ontologically describing a concept, then
using that category as an OLAP member.
As I recall, XML for OLAP is a Microsoft thing,
so I should go consult their pages.
len
-
From: Ken North [mailto:kennorth@sbcglobal.net]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com> asks:
> Off topic, but since data warehousing comes up from
> time to time: what is the advantage of using
> an OLAP design vs a relational design?
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
>> With the exception of the specialized spatial, null compressed, database
designs, for the most part, OLAP designs are relational designs just
highly denormalized.
Nice summary of the star schema (or not) question.
Len will have to clarify the question. I thought he was asking whether to
manage
multi-dimensional data sets with a non-relational data store or an SQL
database
(MOLAP, ROLAP or HOLAP?).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
|
