Skip to Main Content

Database Software

Announcement

For appeals, questions and feedback about Oracle Forums, please email oracle-forums-moderators_us@oracle.com. Technical questions should be asked in the appropriate category. Thank you!

SCD2 Negative surrogate key values generated

birdyMay 27 2010 — edited Jun 1 2010
Hi All

I was testing SCD type 2 operation for a 2 level dimension in OWB 11g R1 using the SCD 2 type automatic handling feature of OWB.
I found that the mapping creates negative values of surrogate keys for the first 1-2 records that i try to load in as new records.
I am not too sure why this is happening as I expected the SKs to start from 1. This is not wrong but very annoying. Also for an update to original record in the lower level of heirarchy, the new record that is created has a surrogate key that is way further in terms of sequence values ( i.e. the current value of sequence was *4* before the update record was found in the source and after the update is loaded, the new open record created in the dimension has a key value of *9*)

Also the end date or expiry date is set to null. Can I not customise it to set it to 31-Dec-9999?

Sample data: Parent level data: Account

select dimension_key,account_key,account_number,acc_desc,account_dim_from,account_dim_to from element_dim;

DIMENSION_KEY ACCOUNT_KEY ACCOUNT_NUMBER ACC_DESC ACCOUNT_DIM_FROM ACCOUNT_DIM_TO
-1 -1 A101 NewAccn 27-May-10
-2 -2 A102 Necacc2 27-May-10
3 -2 A102 Necacc2 27-May-10
4 -1 A101 NewAccn 27-May-10
9 -2 A102 Necacc2 27-May-10

Child level data: Element - With SCD 2 change for case where secured_unsecured is changed to null for element number E102

DIMENSION_KEY ELEMENT_KEY ACCOUNT_KEY ACCOUNT_NUMBER ELEMENT_NUMBER SECURED_UNSECURED ELEMENT_DIM_FROM ELEMENT_DIM_TO
-1 -1 A101
-2 -2 A102
3 3 -2 A102 E102 Sec02 27-May-10 27-May-10
4 4 -1 A101 E101 Sec01 27-May-10
9 9 -2 A102 E102 27-May-10

Cheers
Birdy
Comments
Locked Post
New comments cannot be posted to this locked post.
Post Details
Locked on Jun 29 2010
Added on May 27 2010
3 comments
1,765 views