<?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 Associations vs Concatenate Tables in App Development</title>
    <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Associations-vs-Concatenate-Tables/m-p/66985#M4429</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Team,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have to check Performance the which way is provide better solution on Associations vs Concatenate Tables in QlikSense ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have two set of tables which contain more than 500 columns in each table.I have created the link key for common fields and created the&amp;nbsp; link Table (contains 200 common fields).we are getting the correct data now.It definitely have the association key Weight age.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If i concatenate the those two tables without link table(not creating &lt;SPAN style="font-size: 13.3333px;"&gt;Associations &lt;/SPAN&gt;key).How the data will perform?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:36:22 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>subash29</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-03-21T16:36:22Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Associations vs Concatenate Tables</title>
      <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Associations-vs-Concatenate-Tables/m-p/66985#M4429</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Team,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have to check Performance the which way is provide better solution on Associations vs Concatenate Tables in QlikSense ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have two set of tables which contain more than 500 columns in each table.I have created the link key for common fields and created the&amp;nbsp; link Table (contains 200 common fields).we are getting the correct data now.It definitely have the association key Weight age.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If i concatenate the those two tables without link table(not creating &lt;SPAN style="font-size: 13.3333px;"&gt;Associations &lt;/SPAN&gt;key).How the data will perform?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:36:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Associations-vs-Concatenate-Tables/m-p/66985#M4429</guid>
      <dc:creator>subash29</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-03-21T16:36:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Associations vs Concatenate Tables</title>
      <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Associations-vs-Concatenate-Tables/m-p/66986#M4430</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;500 columns is quite a lot, indeed it would take awful lot of viz's to exploit that many.&amp;nbsp; Are there any columns not used&amp;nbsp; that you could get rid of ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A link table with 200 common fields seems very excessive.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;p.s. I am advocate of concatenating fact tables where appropriate.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:20:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Associations-vs-Concatenate-Tables/m-p/66986#M4430</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-03-21T17:20:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

