Interesting findings in rules

Post Reply
User avatar
macsir
Community Contributor
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 6:50 am
OLAP Product: TM1, SSAS
Version: 9.5 - 10.2
Excel Version: 97 - 2013
Contact:

Interesting findings in rules

Post by macsir » Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:52 am

Although the official document is saying,
When consolidating data in cubes that have rules defined, TM1 turns off this sparse consolidation algorithm because one or more empty cells may in fact be calculated by a rule. (Skipping rules-calculated cells will cause consolidated totals to be incorrect). When the sparse consolidation algorithm is turned off, every cell is checked for a value during consolidation. This can slow down calculations in cubes that are very large and sparse.

SKIPCHECK;copy to clipboard
If your rule uses a FEEDSTRINGS statement, the SKIPCHECK statement should be the second statement in your rule. If your rule does not use a FEEDSTRINGS statement, the SKIPCHECK statement should be the first statement in your rule.

When you use SKIPCHECK to restore sparse consolidation, you must also ensure that your rule includes a FEEDERS declaration and that all rules-derived cells are identified by feeder statements.
But if you put any text without hash in the front before SKIPCHECK statment, TM1 won't give you any error and rule is still valid if you save it. I don't know if it is bug or not. This has been verified in 10.2.2 FP4 and PA2 environments. I assume the rule just begin to be evaluated from SKIPCHECK statement anyway. Anything before that will be ignored.
In TM1,the answer is always yes though sometimes with a but....
http://tm1sir.blogspot.com.au/

User avatar
Elessar
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:33 pm
OLAP Product: TM1
Version: 10.2.2
Excel Version: 2010
Location: Russia

Re: Interesting findings in rules

Post by Elessar » Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:53 am

(Was long ago in 9.5.2)
This broke my brain, when I tried to analyze a rule with 3 (!) SKIPCHECKS

The rule begins to be evaluated from the last SKIPCHECK statement
Sorry for my English ;)

User avatar
macsir
Community Contributor
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 6:50 am
OLAP Product: TM1, SSAS
Version: 9.5 - 10.2
Excel Version: 97 - 2013
Contact:

Re: Interesting findings in rules

Post by macsir » Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:08 pm

Elessar wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:53 am
(Was long ago in 9.5.2)
This broke my brain, when I tried to analyze a rule with 3 (!) SKIPCHECKS

The rule begins to be evaluated from the last SKIPCHECK statement
haha, good one. :lol:
In TM1,the answer is always yes though sometimes with a but....
http://tm1sir.blogspot.com.au/

Duncan P
MVP
Posts: 586
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:19 pm
OLAP Product: TM1
Version: 9.5.2 10.1 10.2
Excel Version: 2003 2007
Location: York, UK

Re: Interesting findings in rules

Post by Duncan P » Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:56 pm

I went to a customer in the south of England who were using this feature of the rule parser to write extensive well formatted documentation of their rules. Couldn't believe it then went back to read the parser code and, lo and behold, it was confirmed. However it looked as if it was completely accidental. I suppose only Manny could tell for sure.

User avatar
PavoGa
Community Contributor
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:59 pm
OLAP Product: TM1
Version: 10.2.2 FP7, PA2.0
Excel Version: 2013
Location: Cleveland, Tennessee

Re: Interesting findings in rules

Post by PavoGa » Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:26 pm

Duncan P wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:56 pm
customer in the south of England who were using this feature of the rule parser to write extensive well formatted documentation of their rules.
This race of beings of which you speak, of what heretofore unknown lands in the south of England whence they came? :lol:
Ty
Cleveland, TN

Post Reply