Advertisement

Using the Entity-Attribute-Value Model for OLAP Cube Construction

  • Peter Thanisch
  • Tapio Niemi
  • Marko Niinimaki
  • Jyrki Nummenmaa
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 90)

Abstract

When utilising multidimensional OLAP (On-Line Analytic Processing) analysis models in Business Intelligence analysis, it is common that the users need to add new, unanticipated dimensions to the OLAP cube. In a conventional implementation, this would imply frequent re-designs of the cube’s dimensions. We present an alternative method for the addition of new dimensions. Interestingly, the same design method can also be used to import EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value) tables into a cube. EAV tables have earlier been used to represent extremely sparse data in applications such as biomedical databases. Though space-efficient, EAV-representation can be awkward to query.

Our EAV-to-OLAP cube methodology has an advantage of managing many-to-many relationships in a natural manner. Simple theoretical analysis shows that the methodology is efficient in space consumption. We demonstrate the efficiency of our approach in terms of the speed of OLAP cube re-processing when importing EAV-style data, comparing the performance of our cube design method with the performance of the conventional cube design.

Keywords

OLAP dimensions EAV 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cameron, S.: Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Analysis Services. Microsoft Press, Redmond (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dinu, V., Nadkarni, P.: Guidelines for the effective use of entity-attribute-value modeling for biomedical databases. International Journal of Medical Informatics 76(11), 769–779 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee, H., Shim, J.: Pivoted table index for querying product property-value information. Journal of Software 2(5) (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leonhardi, B., Mitschang, B., Pulido, R., Sieb, C., Wurst, M.: Augmenting olap exploration with dynamic advanced analytics. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Extending Database Technology, EDBT 2010, pp. 687–692. ACM, New York (2010), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1739041.1739127 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McBride, B.: The resource description framework (RDF) and its vocabulary description language RDFS. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Niedner, C.D.: The entity-attribute-value model for data and control structures in radiology. In: S/CAR 1990: Computer Applications to Assist Radiology. Symposia Foundation Press, Carlsbad (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Niemi, T., Nummenmaa, J., Thanisch, P.: Normalising OLAP cubes for controlling sparsity. Data Knowl. Eng. 46, 317–343 (2003), http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=942051.942055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Russo, M.: The Many-to-Many Revolution. Electronic Book (2006), http://www.lulu.com/content/812235
  9. 9.
    Williams, S.: The Associative Model of Data. Lazy Software (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Thanisch
    • 1
  • Tapio Niemi
    • 2
  • Marko Niinimaki
    • 2
  • Jyrki Nummenmaa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer SciencesUniversity of TampereFinland
  2. 2.Helsinki Institute of Physics, Technology ProgrammeCERNGeneva 23Switzerland

Personalised recommendations