Data Warehousing

Data Warehousing

& OLAP

& OLAP

Wolf-Tilo Balke Silviu Homoceanu

Institut für Informationssysteme

Technische Universität Braunschweig

http://www.ifis.cs.tu-bs.de

• Last week:

– Storage structures: MDB

– Architectures: N-Tier Architectures – Data Modeling – Conceptual Modeling

Summary

Data Modeling – Conceptual Modeling

• Multidimensional Entity Relationship (ME/R) Model

• Multidimensional UML (mUML)

• This week:

– Data Modeling (continued)

3. Data Modeling

3.1 Logical Modeling:

Cubes, Dimensions, Hierarchies 3.2 Physical Modeling:

Star, Snowflake, Array storage

3. DW Modeling

Star, Snowflake, Array storage

• Goal of the Logical Model

– Confirm the subject areas

– Create ‘real’ facts and dimensions from the subjects that we have identified

3.1 Logical Model

– Establish the needed granularity for our dimensions

• Logical structure of the multidimensional model

– Cubes: Sales, Purchase, Price, Inventory

– Dimensions: Product, Time, Geography, Client

3.1 Logical Model

Purchase Amount Store

City District

Region Country

Article Prod. Group

Prod. Family Prod. Categ

Week Month Day Quarter

Year

Price Unit Price

Inventory Stock

Sales Turnover Client

• Dimensions are…

analysis purpose chosen entities, within the data model

– One dimension can be used to define

3.1 Dimensions

more than one cube

– They are hierarchically organized

Purchase Amount Article

Prod. Group Prod. Family

Prod. Categ

Price Unit Price

Sales Turnover

• Dimension hierarchies are organized in

classification levels (e.g., Day, Month, …)

– The dependencies between the classification levels are described by the classification schema through

functional dependencies

3.1 Dimensions

functional dependencies

• An attribute B is functionally dependent on an attribute A, denoted A ⟶ B, if for all a ∈ dom(A) there exists exactly one b ∈ dom(B) corresponding to it

Week Month Day Quarter

Year

• Classification schemas

– The classification schema of a dimension D is a semi- ordered set of classification levels

({D.K

, …, D.K

}, ⟶ )

– With a smallest element D.K ,

3.1 Dimensions

⟶

– With a smallest element D.K

,

i.e. there is no classification level

with smaller granularity

• A fully-ordered set of classification levels is called a Path

– If we consider the classification schema of the time dimension, then we have the following paths

• T.Day T.Week

3.1 Dimensions

• T.Day T.Week

• T.Day T.Month T.Quarter T.Year

– Here T.Day is the smallest element

Month Day Quarter

Year

Week

• Classification hierarchies

– Let D.K

⟶ …⟶ D.K

be a path in the classification schema of dimension D

– A classification hierarchy concerning these path is a balanced tree which

3.1 Dimensions

a balanced tree which

• Has as nodes dom(D.K

) … dom(D.K

) {ALL}

• And its edges respect the functional dependencies

• Example: classification hierarchy from the path product dimension

3.1 Dimensions

Article Prod. Group

Prod. Family Prod. Categ

ALL Electronics

Video Audio

Video recorder

Video

recorder Camcorder

TR-34 TS-56

…

…

TV

…

Clothes

…

Article

Prod. Group Prod. Family Category

• Cubes consist of data cells with one or more measures

• If a cube schema S(G,M) consists of a granularity G=(D

.K

, …, D

.K

) and a set M=(M

, …, M

)

C C C C

3.1 Cubes

S(G,M)

granularity G=(D

.K

, …, D

.K

) and a set M=(M

, …, M

) representing the measure

– A Cube (C C C C) is a set of cube cells,

C ⊆ dom(G) x dom(M)

• The coordinates of a cell are the classification nodes from dom(G) corresponding to the cell

– Sales ((Article, Day, Store, Client), (Turnover)) – …

3.1 Cubes

3.1 Cubes

605818 825 14 400 818

… … … …

Supplier = s1 Supplier = s2 Supplier = s3

…818 … … …

Berlin MünchenParis Braunschweig

Q1

• 4 dimensions (supplier, city, quarter, product)

927 103 812 102

39 580 30 501 680 952

605 825

31 512 14 400

… …

… …

… …

… …

… …

… …

… …

… …

… …

… …

… …

… …

… …

… …

… …

… …

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Computer Video

Audio Telephones Computer Video

Audio Telephones Computer Video

Audio Telephones

• We can now imagine n-dimensional cubes

– n-D cube is called a base cuboid

– The top most cuboid, the 0-D, which holds the highest level of summarization is called apex cuboid

3.1 Cubes

– The full data cube is formed by the

lattice of cuboids

• But things can get complicated pretty fast

3.1 Cubes

all

time supplier

0-D(apex) cuboid

1-D cuboids item location

time,item time,location

time,supplier

item,location

item,supplier

location,supplier

time,item,location

time,item,supplier

time,location,supplier

item,location,supplier

2-D cuboids

3-D cuboids

4-D(base) cuboid

• Basic operations of the multidimensional model on the logical level

– Selection – Projection

3.1 Basic Operations

– Cube join – Sum

– Aggregation

• Multidimensional Selection

– The selection on a cube C((D

.K

,…, D

.K

),

(M

, …, M

)) through a predicate P, is defined as σ

(C) = {z Є C:P(z)}, if all variables in P are either:

• Classification levels K , which functionally depend on a K D .K ⟶ K

3.1 Basic Operations

(M , …, M )) P

σ

(C) = {z Є C:P(z)}, P

• Classification levels K , which functionally depend on a classification level in the granularity of K, i.e. D

.K

⟶ K

• Measures from (M

, …, M

)

– E.g. σ

(Sales)

• Multidimensional projection

– The projection of a function of a measure F(M) of cube C is defined as

-

(C) = { (g,F(m)) ∈ dom(G) x dom(F(M)): (g,m) ∈ C}

– E.g. , price projection -

(Sales)

3.1 Basic Operations

C

-

(C) = { (g,F(m)) dom(G) x dom(F(M)): (g,m) C}

– E.g. , price projection -

(Sales)

Sales Turnover Sold_items

• Join operations between cubes is usual

– E.g. if turnover would not be provided, it could be calculated with the help of the unit price from the price cube

• 2 cubes C

(G

, M

) and C

(G

, M

) can only be

3.1 Basic Operations

• 2 cubes C

(G

, M

) and C

(G

, M

) can only be joined, if they have the same granularity

(G

= G

= G)

– C

⋈C

= C(G, M

∪ M

)

Price Unit Price Sales

Units_Sold

• When the granularities are different, but we still need to join the cubes, aggregation has to be performed

– E.g. , Sales ⋈ Inventory: aggregate Sales((Day, Article, Store, Client)) to Sales((Month, Article, Store, Client))

3.1 Basic Operations

Sales ⋈ Inventory:

Store, Client)) to Sales((Month, Article, Store, Client))

Store City

District Region

Country

Article Prod. Group

Prod. Family Prod. Categ

Week Month Day Quarter

Year

Inventory Stock

Sales Turnover Client

• Aggregation: most important operation for OLAP operations

• Aggregation functions

– Build a single values from set of value, e.g. in SQL:

SUM (Sales)

3.1 Basic Operations

– Build a single values from set of value, e.g. in SQL:

SUM, AVG, Count, Min, Max

– Example: SUM

(Sales)

• Comparing granularities

– A granularity G={D

.K

, …, D

.K

} is finer than G’={D

’.K

’, …, D

’.K

’}, if and only if

for each D

’.K

’ ∈ G’ ∃ D

.K

∈ G where D

.K

⟶ D

’.K

’

3.1 Basic Operations

G’={D ’.K ’, …, D ’.K ’},

D

’.K

’ G’ ∃ D

.K

G ⟶

• Classification schema, cube schema, classification hierarchy are all designed in the building phase and considered as fix

– Practice has proven otherwise – DW grow old, too

3.1 Change support

– DW grow old, too

– Changes are strongly connected to the time factor – This lead to the time validity of these concepts

• Reasons for schema modification

– New requirements

– Modification of the data source

• E.g. Saturn sells a lot of electronics

– Lets consider mobile phones

• They built their DW on 01.03.2003

• A classification hierarchy of their data until 01.07.2008 could look

3.1 Classification Hierarchy

data until 01.07.2008 could look

like this:

GSM 3G

Nokia 3600 O2 XDA BlackBerry

Bold

• After 01.07.2008 3G becomes hip and affordable and many phone makers start migrating towards 3G capable phones

– Lets say O2 makes its XDA 3G capable

3.1 Classification Hierarchy

Mobile Phone

GSM 3G

BlackBerry

• After 01.04.2010 phone makers already develop 4G capable phones

3.1 Classification Hierarchy

Mobile Phone

GSM 3G

Nokia 3600 O2 XDA BlackBerry

Bold

4G

Best phone ever

• It is important to trace the evolution of the data

– It can explain which data was available at which moment in time

– Such a versioning system of the classification

3.1 Classification Hierarchy

– Such a versioning system of the classification hierarchy can be performed by constructing a validity matrix

• When is something, valid?

• Use timestamps to mark it!

• Annotated Change data

3.1 Classification Hierarchy

Mobile Phone

[01.03.2003, ∞)

[01.04.2005, ∞) [01.04.2010, ∞)

GSM 3G

Nokia 3600 O2 XDA BlackBerry

Bold

4G

Best phone ever

[01.03.2003, ∞)

[01.04.2005, ∞) [01.04.2010, ∞)

[01.04.2010, ∞) [01.04.2005, ∞)

[01.03.2006, ∞) [01.07.2008, ∞)

[01.03.2003, 01.07.2008)

• The tree can be stored as dimension metadata

– The storage form is a validity matrix

• Rows are parent nodes

• Columns are child nodes

3.1 Classification Hierarchy

GSM 3G 4G Nokia 3600 O2 XDA Berry Bold Best phone

Mobile phone

[01.03.2003, ∞) [01.04.2005, ∞) [01.04.2010, ∞)

GSM [01.04.2005, ∞) [01.03.2003,

01.07.2008)

3G [01.07.2008, ∞) [01.03.2006, ∞)

4G [01.04.2010

, ∞) Nokia 3600

O2 XDA Berry Bold

• Deleting a node in a classification hierarchy

– Should be performed only in exceptional cases

• It can lead to information loss

• How do we solve it?

– Soon GSM phones will not be produced anymore

3.1 Classification Hierarchy

– Soon GSM phones will not be produced anymore

• But we might have some more in our warehouses, to be delivered

• Or we might want to query data since when GSM was sold

• Just mark the end validity date of the GSM branch in the

validity matrix

• Query classification

– Having the validity information we can support queries like as is versus as is

• Regards all the data as if the only valid classification hierarchy is the present one

3.1 Classification Hierarchy

hierarchy is the present one

• In the case of O2 XDA, it will be considered as it has always been a 3G phone

Mobile Phone

GSM 3G

Nokia 3600 O2 XDA BlackBerry Bold

4G

Best phone ever

• As is versus as was

– Orders the classification hierarchy by the validity matrix information

• O2 XDA was a GSM phone until 01.07.2008 and a 3G phone afterwards

3.1 Classification Hierarchy

phone afterwards

Mobile Phone

GSM 3G

Nokia 3600 O2 XDA BlackBerry

Bold BlackBerry

Bold 4G

Best phone ever Best phone

ever

…

… …

… …

…

…

• As was versus as was

– Past time hierarchies can be reproduced

– E.g., query data with an older classification

3.1 Classification Hierarchy

Mobile Phone

GSM 3G

…

… …

…

older classification

hierarchy

• Like versus like

– Only data whose classification hierarchy remained unmodified, is evaluated

– E.g. the Nokia 3600 and the Black Berry

Nokia 3600 O2 XDA BlackBerry Bold

…

• Improper modification of a schema (deleting a dimension) can lead to

– Data loss

– Inconsistencies

• Data is incorrectly aggregated or adapted

3.1 Schema Modification

• Proper schema modification is complex but

– It brings flexibility for the end user

• The possibility to ask “As Is vs. As Was” queries and so on

• Alternatives

– Schema evolution

– Schema versioning

• Schema evolution

– Modifications can be performed without data loss – It involves schema modification and data adaptation

to the new schema

– This data adaptation process is called Instance

3.1 Schema Modification

– This data adaptation process is called Instance adaptation

Purchase Amount Article

Prod. Group Prod. Family

Prod. Categ Sales

Turnover

• Schema evolution

– Advantage

• Faster to execute queries in DW with many schema modifications

– Disadvantages

3.1 Schema Modification

– Disadvantages

• It limits the end user flexibility to query based on the past schemas

• Only actual schema based queries are supported

• Schema versioning

– Also no data loss

– All the data corresponding to all the schemas are always available

– After a schema modification the data is held in their belonging schema

3.1 Schema Modification

belonging schema

• Old data - old schema

• New data - new schema

Purchase Amount Article

Prod. Group Prod. Family

Prod. Categ Sales

Turnover

Article Prod. Group

Prod. Categ Sales

Turnover

• Schema versioning

– Advantages

• Allows higher flexibility, e.g., “As Is vs. As Was”, etc. queries

– Disadvantages

• Adaptation of the data to the queried schema is done on the spot

3.1 Schema Modification

the spot

• This results in longer

query run time

• Defining the physical structures

– Setting up the database environment

– Performance tuning strategies (next lecture)

• Indexing

3.2 Physical Model

• Partitioning

• Materialization

• Goal:

– Define the actual storage architecture

– Decide on how the data is to be accessed and how it

is arranged

• Physical implementation of the multidimensional paradigm model can be:

– Relational

• Snowflake-schema

• Star-schema

3.2 Physical Model

• Star-schema

– Multidimensional

• Matrixes

• Relational model, goals:

– As low loss of semantically knowledge as possible e.g., classification hierarchies

– The translation from multidimensional queries must

3.2 Physical Model

The translation from multidimensional queries must be efficient

– The RDBMS should be able to run the translated queries efficiently

– The maintenance of the present tables should be easy

and fast e.g., when loading new data

• Going from multidimensional to relational

– Representations for cubes, dimensions, classification hierarchies and attributes

– Implementation of cubes without the classification hierarchies is easy

3.2 Relational Model

hierarchies is easy

• A table can be seen as a cube

• A column of a table can be considered as a dimension mapping

• A tuple in the table represents a cell in the cube

• If we interpret only a part of the columns as dimensions we can use the rest as measures

• The resulting table is called a fact table

3.2 Relational Model

818 Product

Time

Laptops Mobile p.

Geography

13.11.2008 18.12.2008

Article Store Day Sales

Laptops Hannover, Saturn 13.11.2008 6 Mobile Phones Hannover Saturn 18.12.2008 24

• Snowflake-schema

– Simple idea: use a table for each classification level

• This table includes the ID of the classification level and other attributes

• 2 neighbor classification levels are connected by 1:n

3.2 Relational Model

• 2 neighbor classification levels are connected by 1:n connections e.g., from n Days to 1 Month

• The measures of a cube are maintained in a fact table

• Besides measures, there are also the foreign key IDs for the smallest

classification levels

• Snowflake?

– The facts/measures are in the center – The dimensions spread

out in each direction and branch out with their

3.2 Snowflake Schema

branch out with their

granularity

3.2 Snowflake Example

Sales Product_ID Day_ID Store_ID Sales Revenue Product

Product_ID Description Brand Product_gro up_ID

… Product group

Product_group_ID Description Product_categ_ID

Product category Product_category_ID Description

Day Day_ID Description Month_ID Week_ID

Week Week_ID Description Year_ID

Year Year_ID Description Month

Month_ID Description Quarter_ID n

n

n

n

n n

n

n n

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

1

Store Store_ID Description State_ID

… State

State_ID Description Region_ID Region

Region_ID Description Country_ID

Country Country_ID Description

Quarter Quarter_ID Description

Year_ID ⁿ

n

n n

1 1 1

1

1

fact table

dimension tables

time

location

• Snowflake schema – Advantages

– With a snowflake schema the size of the dimension tables will be reduced and queries will run faster

• If a dimension is very sparse (most measures corresponding to the dimension have no data)

3.2 Snowflake Schema

corresponding to the dimension have no data)

• And/or a dimension has long list of attributes

which may be queried

• Snowflake schema – Disadvantages

– Fact tables are responsible for 90% of the storage requirements

•

Thus, normalizing the dimensions usually lead to insignificant improvements

3.2 Snowflake Schema

improvements

– Normalization of the dimension tables can reduce the performance of the DW because it leads to a large number of tables

•

E.g., when connecting dimensions with coarse granularity these tables are joined with each other during queries

•

A query which connects Product category with Year and Country

is clearly not performant (10 tables need to be connected)

3.2 Snowflake Example

Sales Product_ID Day_ID Store_ID Sales Revenue Product

Product_ID Description Brand Product_gro up_ID

… Product group

Product_group_ID Description Product_categ_ID

Product category Product_category_ID Description

Day Day_ID Description Month_ID Week_ID

Week Week_ID Description Year_ID

Year Year_ID Description Month

Month_ID Description Quarter_ID n

n

n

n

n n

n

n n

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

1

Store Store_ID Description State_ID

… State

State_ID Description Region_ID Region

Region_ID Description Country_ID

Country

Quarter Quarter_ID Description

Year_ID ⁿ

n

n n

1 1 1

1

1

• Star schema

– Basic idea: use a denormalized schema for all the dimensions

• A star schema can be obtained from the snowflake schema through the denormalization of the tables

3.2 Relational Model

schema through the denormalization of the tables

belonging to a dimension

3.2 Star Schema - Example

Sales Product_ID Time_ID Geo_ID Sales Revenue Product

Product_ID Product group Product category Description

…

Time Time_ID Day Week Month Quarter Year n

n n 1

1

Geography Geo_ID Store State Region Country

…

Year

1

• Advantages

– Improves query performance for often-used data – Less tables and simple structure

– Efficient query processing with regard to dimensions

3.2 Star Schema

Efficient query processing with regard to dimensions

• Disadvantages

– In some cases, high overhead of redundant data

• Snowflake vs. Star

3.2 Snowflake vs. Star

– The structure of the classifications are

expressed in table schemas – The fact table and

dimension tables are

– The entire classification is expressed in just one table – The fact table is normalized

while in the dimension table the normalization is broken dimension tables are

normalized

the normalization is broken

• This leads to redundancy of information in the dimension tables

3.2 Examples

• Snowflake • Star

Product_ID Description Brand Prod_group_ID

10 E71 Nokia 4

11 PS-42A Samsung 2

12 5800 Nokia 4

Bold Berry 4

Product_

ID

Description … Prod.

group

Prod. categ

10 E71 … Mobile Ph.. Electronics

11 PS-42A … TV Electronics

12 5800 Mobile Ph.. Electronics

Prod_group_ID Description Prod_categ_ID

2 TV 11

4 Mobile Pho.. 11

Prod_categ_ID Description

11 Electronics

13 Bold Mobile Ph.. Electronics

• When should we go from Snowflake to star?

– Heuristics-based decision

• When typical queries relate to coarser granularity (like product category)

• When the volume of data in the dimension tables is

3.2 Snowflake to Star

• When the volume of data in the dimension tables is relatively low compared to the fact table

– In this case a star schema leads to negligible overhead through redundancy, but performance is improved

• When modifications on the classifications are rare compared to insertion of fact data

– In this case these modifications controlled through the data load process of the ETL reducing the risk of data anomalies

• Snowflake or Star?

– It depends on the necessity

• Fast query processing or efficient space usage

– However, most of the time a mixed form

3.2 Do we have a winner?

is used

• The Starflake schema: some dimensions stay normalized corresponding to the

snowflake schema, while others are

denormalized according to the star schema

• The Starflake schema

– The decision on how to deal with the dimensions is influenced by

• Frequency of the modifications: if the dimensions change often, normalization leads to better results

3.2 Our forces combined

often, normalization leads to better results

• Amount of dimension elements: the bigger the dimension tables, the more space normalization saves

• Number of classification levels in a dimension: more classification levels introduce more redundancy in the star schema

• Materialization of aggregates for the dimension levels:

if the aggregates are materialized, a normalization of the

• Galaxies

– In pratice we usually have more measures described by different dimensions

• Thus, more fact tables

3.2 More Schemas

• Thus, more fact tables

Sales Product_ID Store_ID Sales Revenue Store

Store_ID

…

Date Date_ID

…

Product Product_ID

…

Receipts Product_ID Date_ID

Vendor Vendor_ID

…

• Other schemas

– Fact constellations

• Pre-calculated aggregates

– Factless fact tables

3.2 Even More Schemas

• Fact tables do not have non-key data

– Can be used for event tracking or to inventory the set of possible occurrences

– …

• Relational model - disadvantages

– The representation of the

multidimensional data can be implemented relationally with a finite set of transformation steps, however:

• Multidimensional queries have to be first translated to the

3.2 Relational Model

• Multidimensional queries have to be first translated to the relational representation

• A direct interaction with the relational data model is not fit for the end user

• What about storing the data multidimensionally?

• The basic data structure for multidimensional data storage is the array

• The elementary data structures are the cubes and the dimensions

3.2 Multidimensional Model

the dimensions

– C=((D

, …, D

), (M

, …, M

))

• The storage is intuitive as arrays of arrays,

physically linearized

• Linearization example: 2D cube |D

| = 5, |D

| = 4, cube cells = 20

– Query: Jackets sold in March?

• Measure stored in cube cell D

[4], D

[3]

2D

3.2 Multidimensional Model

20

• Measure stored in cube cell D

[4], D

[3]

• The 2D cube is physically stored as a linear array, so

D

[4], D

[3] becomes array cell 14

– (Index(D₂) – 1) * |D₁| + Index(D₁) – Linearized Index = 2 * 5 + 4 = 14

• Generalization…

1 1 3 6 47

2 2 53

7 8 89

6 4

9 11 11 16 1217

10 12 1313

15 18 1619

14 14

17 5 19 10 25 15 27 20

Jan (1) Feb(2) Mar(3) Apr(4)

D₁ D₂

• Generalization:

– Given a cube C=((D

, D

, …, D

),

(M

:Type

, M

:Type

, …, M

:Type

)),

the index of a cube cell z with coordinates (x

, x

, …, x

)

Index(z) = x + (x - 1) * |D | + (x - 1) * |D | * |D | + …

3.2 Linearization

(M

:Type

, M

:Type

, …, M

:Type

))

the index of a cube cell z with coordinates (x

, x

, …, x

) can be linearized as follows:

• Index(z) = x

+ (x

- 1) * |D

| + (x

- 1) * |D

| * |D

| + … + (x

- 1) * |D

| * … * |D

| =

= 1+ ∑

i=1

n

((x

- 1) * ∏

j=1

i-1

|D

|)

• Influence of the order of the dimensions in the cube definition

– In the cube the cells of D

are ordered one under the other

e.g., sales of all pants involves a

3.2 Problems in Array-Storage

1 1 3 6 47

2 2 53

7 8 89

6 4 175

19 10

Jan (1) Feb(2)

D

D

e.g., sales of all pants involves a column in the cube

– After linearization, the information is

spread among more data blocks or pages

– If we consider a data block can hold 5 cells, a query over all products sold in January can be answered with just 1 block read, but a query of all sold pants, involves reading 4 blocks

9 11 11 16 1217

10 12 1313

15 18 1619

14 14 2515

27 20

Mar(3) Apr(4)

D₁ D₂

• Solution: use caching techniques

– But…caching and swapping is performed also by the operating system

– MDBMS has to manage its caches

3.2 Problems in Array-Storage

– MDBMS has to manage its caches

such that the OS doesn’t perform any

damaging swaps

• Storage of dense cubes

– If cubes are dense, array storage is more efficient.

However, operations suffer due to the large cubes – Solution: store dense cubes not linear but on 2

3.2 Problems in Array-Storage

– Solution: store dense cubes not linear but on 2 levels

• The first contains indexes and the second the data cells stored in blocks

• Optimization procedures like indexes (trees, bitmaps),

physical partitioning, and compression (run-length-

encoding) can be used

• Storage of sparse cubes

– All the cells of a cube, including empty ones, have to be stored

– Sparseness leads to data being stored in many physical blocks or pages

3.2 Problems in Array-Storage

blocks or pages

•

The query speed is affected by the large number of block accesses on the secondary memory

– Solution:

• Do not store empty blocks or pages

but adapt the index structure

• 2 level data structure: upper layer holds all possible

combinations of the sparse dimensions, lower layer holds dense

• 2 level cube storage

3.2 Problems in Array-Storage

Marketing campaign

Customer

Sparse upper level

Product Time Geo

Dense low level

• Based on the physical model used:

– DOLAP (Desktop OLAP)

– MOLAP (Multidimensional OLAP) – ROLAP (Relational OLAP)

3.2 Physical Models

T i m

ROLAP (Relational OLAP)

– HOLAP (Hybrid OLAP)

O L A P R O L A P H O L A P M O L A P D O L A P

• DOLAP

– Developed as extension to the production system reports

• It downloads a small hypercube from a central point (data mart or DW)

3.2 Physical Models

mart or DW)

• Performs multidimensional analysis while disconnected from the data source

• The computation occurs on the client

– Requires little investment

– They lack the ability to manage large data sets

• MOLAP

– Presentation layer provides the multidimensional view

– The OLAP server stores data in a

3.2 Physical Models

MOLAP Client

Presentation

Server

The OLAP server stores data in a multidimensional structure

• Computation occurs in this layer during the loading step (not at query)

MOLAP Interface

Data MDB

• Advantages

– Excellent performance

• Fast data retrieval

• Optimal for slicing and dicing

• Complex calculations

3.2 MOLAP

• Complex calculations

• All calculations are pre-generated when the cube is

created

• All calculations are pre-generated when the cube is created

3.2 MOLAP

all

0-D(apex) cuboid

time supplier

time,item time,location

time,supplier

item,location

item,supplier

location,supplier

time,item,location

time,item,supplier

time,location,supplier

item,location,supplier

1-D cuboids

2-D cuboids

3-D cuboids

item location

• Disadvantages

– Limited amount of data it can handle

•

Cube can be derived from large amount of data, but only

– Requires additional investment

3.2 MOLAP

– Requires additional investment

•

Cube technology are often proprietary

– Enormous amount of overhead

•

An input file of 200 MB can expand to 5 GB with calculations

• Products:

– Cognos (IBM), Essbase (Oracle), Microsoft Analysis

Service, Palo (open source)

• ROLAP

– Presentation layer provides the multidimensional view

– The ROLAP Server generates

3.2 ROLAP

Server ROLAP

Client

Presentation

The ROLAP Server generates SQL queries, from the OLAP OLAP requests, to query the RDBMS

– Data is stored in RDBs

Server ROLAP

Server

RDBMS

• Special schema design: e.g., star, snowflake

• Special indexes: e.g., bitmap, R-Trees

• Advantages

– Proven technology (relational model, DBMS)

3.2 ROLAP

– Can handle large amounts of data (VLDBs)

• Disadvantages

– Limited SQL functionalities

• Products

– Microsoft Analysis Service, Siebel Analytics (now

Oracle BI), Micro Strategy, Mondrian (open source)

• Based on OLAP needs

3.2 ROLAP vs. MOLAP

OLAP needs MOLAP ROLAP

User Benefits

Multidimensional View √ √

Excellent Performance √ -

Analytical Flexibility √ -

Benefits Analytical Flexibility √ -

Real-Time Data Access - √

High Data Capacity - √

MIS Benefits

Easy Development √ -

Low Structure Maintenance - √

Low Aggregate Maintenance √ -

• HOLAP

– Best of both worlds

• Storing detailed data in RDBs

• Storing aggregated data in MDBs

– Different partitioning approaches

3.2 HOLAP

Server HOLAP

Presentation

– Different partitioning approaches between MOLAP and ROLAP

• Vertical

• Horizontal

Server HOLAP

Server

RDBMS

Data

MDDB

• Vertical partitioning

– Aggregations are stored in MOLAP for fast query performance,

– Detailed data in ROLAP to optimize time of cube processing (loading the data from the OLTP)

3.2 HOLAP

processing (loading the data from the OLTP)

• Horizontal partitioning

– HOLAP stores some slice of data, usually the more recent one (i.e. sliced by Time dimension) in MOLAP for fast query performance

– Older data in ROLAP

• Other approaches

– Store some cubes in MOLAP and others in ROLAP, leveraging the fact that in a large cuboid, there will be dense and sparse sub-regions

3.2 HOLAP

• ROLAP

– RDBMS - star/snowflake schema

– For detailed and larger volumes of data (TB)

• MOLAP

3.2 Conclusions

• MOLAP

– MDBMS - Cube structures, array based storage

– For summarized and relatively “small” volumes of data (50GB)

• HOLAP is emerging as the OLAP server of

choice

• Logical Model

– Cubes, Dimensions, Hierarchies, Classification Levels

• Physical Level

– Relational Implementation through:

• Star schema: improves query performance for often-used

Summary

• Star schema: improves query performance for often-used data

– Less tables and simple structure

– Efficient query processing with regard to dimensions – In some cases, high overhead of redundant data

• Snowflake schema: reduce the size of the dimension tables

– However, through dimension normalization - large number of tables

• Physical Level

– Array based storage

• How to perform linearization

• Problems:

– Order of dimensions – solution: caching

Summary

– Order of dimensions – solution: caching

– Dense Cubes, Sparse Cubes - solution: 2 level storage

– MOLAP, ROLAP, HOLAP

• DW Optimization / Indexes

– Bitmap indexes

– Tree based indexes – Hash indexes

Next lecture