<?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>topic Flattening vs. using SQL tables in their native structure. in App Development</title>
    <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Flattening-vs-using-SQL-tables-in-their-native-structure/m-p/1226821#M23919</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;What is best to develop for Qlik sense when there are multiple SQL tables involved?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Basically ,to build an ETL process to extract the data needed, "flattening" the needed data into a single fact row and then connect to the dimensions needed, or to use the tables in their native structure, letting QLik navigate to all the relationships. (we have a replicated backup site so contention is not an issue ).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The one issue I found with flattening the data is bringing tables with different "grain" levels into a single row and the only solution I have is to "null" the duplicated measures at each level to one single row.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:44:56 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>marcoyukon</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2016-12-22T15:44:56Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Flattening vs. using SQL tables in their native structure.</title>
      <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Flattening-vs-using-SQL-tables-in-their-native-structure/m-p/1226821#M23919</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;What is best to develop for Qlik sense when there are multiple SQL tables involved?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Basically ,to build an ETL process to extract the data needed, "flattening" the needed data into a single fact row and then connect to the dimensions needed, or to use the tables in their native structure, letting QLik navigate to all the relationships. (we have a replicated backup site so contention is not an issue ).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The one issue I found with flattening the data is bringing tables with different "grain" levels into a single row and the only solution I have is to "null" the duplicated measures at each level to one single row.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:44:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Flattening-vs-using-SQL-tables-in-their-native-structure/m-p/1226821#M23919</guid>
      <dc:creator>marcoyukon</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-12-22T15:44:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Flattening vs. using SQL tables in their native structure.</title>
      <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Flattening-vs-using-SQL-tables-in-their-native-structure/m-p/1226822#M23920</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Flatten, create Star Schema &amp;amp; read this &lt;A href="https://community.qlik.com/qlik-blogpost/2819"&gt;Fact Table with Mixed Granularity&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:44:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Flattening-vs-using-SQL-tables-in-their-native-structure/m-p/1226822#M23920</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-12-22T16:44:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

