<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Question Re: Joining Fact tables in Technology Q&amp;A</title>
    <link>https://community.sap.com/t5/technology-q-a/joining-fact-tables/qaa-p/11019903#M4051850</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;It shouldn't be imho. I think it's incorrect and is a result of bad analysis leading to bad table design. I went on a course years ago where we discussed this and said that you *might* consider making that a full join and creating a context with only that one join in it if you have denormalised dimensions in one of the facts but not the other. However, you'd only do that if you were certain of the granularity of the join. We agreed, though, that the model was principally flawed and it would be a lot less painful to reassess the model and rework it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:18:31 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Former Member</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-04-09T10:18:31Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Joining Fact tables</title>
      <link>https://community.sap.com/t5/technology-q-a/joining-fact-tables/qaq-p/11019902</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px;"&gt;In what cases can two fact tables be joined.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can anyone explain why there is a join between promotion facts and shop facts in efashion database and that too shortcut join.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Please put some comments.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ganesh&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2015 06:10:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.sap.com/t5/technology-q-a/joining-fact-tables/qaq-p/11019902</guid>
      <dc:creator>Former Member</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-04-09T06:10:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Joining Fact tables</title>
      <link>https://community.sap.com/t5/technology-q-a/joining-fact-tables/qaa-p/11019903#M4051850</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;It shouldn't be imho. I think it's incorrect and is a result of bad analysis leading to bad table design. I went on a course years ago where we discussed this and said that you *might* consider making that a full join and creating a context with only that one join in it if you have denormalised dimensions in one of the facts but not the other. However, you'd only do that if you were certain of the granularity of the join. We agreed, though, that the model was principally flawed and it would be a lot less painful to reassess the model and rework it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:18:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.sap.com/t5/technology-q-a/joining-fact-tables/qaa-p/11019903#M4051850</guid>
      <dc:creator>Former Member</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-04-09T10:18:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Joining Fact tables</title>
      <link>https://community.sap.com/t5/technology-q-a/joining-fact-tables/qaa-p/11019904#M4051851</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the reply.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2015 10:04:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.sap.com/t5/technology-q-a/joining-fact-tables/qaa-p/11019904#M4051851</guid>
      <dc:creator>Former Member</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-04-14T10:04:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

