Rename attributes for each instance of a role-playing dimension - by Christopher Webb

Status : 


Sign in
to vote
ID 144500 Comments
Status Active Workarounds
Type Suggestion Repros 5
Opened 6/23/2006 9:02:02 AM
Duplicates 284096 Access Restriction Public


It should be possible to rename the attributes for each instance of a role-playing dimension in a cube. Imagine you had a Time dimension in your database, which appeared twice in a cube as a role playing dimension called 'Start Date' and 'End Date'. If the Time dimension has a 'Year' attribute, in most client tools it's impossible for the user to work out which of the two dimensions the 'Year' attribute belongs to if you have both attributes visible in a report.
Sign in to post a comment.
Posted by Christopher Webb on 3/19/2015 at 1:51 PM
Given that this is still active after almost nine years, I think we can give up hope :-)
Posted by rpsajwan on 3/18/2015 at 7:04 PM
Is there any update on this issue?
Posted by Ralph Kemperdick MSFT on 5/15/2014 at 12:35 AM
Is there any plan when this will be added to the SSAS features?
Posted by LukaBD on 7/31/2013 at 6:53 AM
Still nothing!!!
Posted by Alejandro Leguizamo on 5/30/2013 at 11:09 AM
Hi Microsoft: Wondering if there are any updates on this? As you can see, it is still very much needed...
Posted by Zaim Raza on 1/27/2012 at 4:08 PM
renaming option of cube dimension will be very handy rather then we create the seprate database dimension for each role playing attribute.

i hope this feature will be available in sql server 2012.
Posted by bryanfife on 8/31/2011 at 10:32 AM
It would be great to get a firm date release date from Microsoft for this enhancement, maybe for the Denali 2011 release, or even SQL 2008 R2 sp2 when it becomes available.
Posted by Mickel Reemer on 5/22/2011 at 4:24 PM
@Microsoft: It's been half a year since the last comment. Could you shed some light on the status of this issue? I find it difficult to sell my solutions having to tell my customers that the maintenance cost are higher and that the processing times for cubes are higher because I cannot use different attribute names for several instances of one role-playing dimension.

Can you? Please develop a solution and release the solution as soon as possible in a service pack for SQL Server 2008R2. It's been close to 5 years now.
Posted by ponzie on 10/21/2010 at 5:41 AM
So four years and two releases down the line, is it on the cards? This has got to be the single most frustrating aspect of SSAS. It gives the impression that the design of SSAS was done in a lab rather than catering for the real world. The original post talks about improved useability but I think the only work around - actually creating the 'roles' as separate dimensions means that cube processing is adversely affected too. Which ultimately means that we may not be able to build what we want.
Posted by Chlu1 on 7/9/2009 at 3:20 AM
What happened to this issue? Is it solved in SQL Server 2008? Is there a plan to solve it in comming service packs etc?

This is really a show stopper for my clients. It is impossible for them to be able to create valid reports in Excel as the attributes are displayed now.

The only work around I can think of is not using role-playing dimensions. It is such a shame because this will make it more difficult to maintain the solution, and it will most likely affect perfromance in a bad way.
Posted by ponzie on 4/10/2008 at 7:42 AM
I think it would potentially improve performance of cube processing as well. If the only solution is to physically recreate each role (either with views in the source RDBMS or named queries in the BIDS DSV or copies of the cube dimensions) then each role has to be processed - rather than just processing the underlying table and renaming the attribute depending on its context.
It should also make it easier to develop cubes since it is often the case that eac attribute is prefixed with the same text. IT would be good to specifiy the prefix to apply for all attribute once only rather than editing each attribute.
Posted by T.K. [MSFT] on 8/18/2006 at 4:43 PM
This is a good suggestion. We will consider it for the next release of SQL Server.