Master Data Mapping

[Former Member]

Hello Experts,

I am in the process of designing an infocube and i was a little confused about the 2 char hierarchy and wanted to clear my confusion on it.

In the flat file, we can have data either at account level or account group level. So i was thinking of having 2 characteristics - account and account group in the infocube.

But how about the master data mapping between account and account group? where would that be taken care of ?

Ex: Flat File

Year, Curr, CoCd, A/C, CC, Period, Amount

2006, USD, 1000, 38001001, 456700, 1, 100

2006, USD, 1000, 38001002, 456700, 1, 100

2006, USD, 1000, 0380, 45600, 1, 200 -

---

> ( A/C Group 0380 - consolidated entry)

All answers would be duly rewarded with points.

Thanks,

Nandita

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Do you hace account, account level and account group ? or just account level and account group?

You may have account level and account group as attributes of account and keep all the cube and derive account level and account group with master data look up.

In the query, you need to keep account group and account level as free chars.

The other design is to have a hier as we discussed earlier sometime back.

Ravi Thothadri

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

When i am saying account level, i meant account.

The data in the flat file will be either at account/account group. So i guess i have 2 options for design:

1. Have account as a characteristic(dimension) in Infocube and then have account group as an attribute to it and have 2 characteristic hierarchy ( account and account group).

( However for this i might have to delete the account group info in the flat file)

Or

2. Have account and account group as characteristics ( dimensions ) in infocube and then have another infoobject ( ZACCMAP ) as an attribute to account group which would have the master data mapping between account and account group and the hierarchy would be on 1 characteristic (account group).

Oliver and Ravi - correct me if i am wrong or what's the best approach to go with ?

Thanks,

Nandita

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

agree with Ravi, the first is the best; still, how are you going to populate the account group (attribute of account) when loading the account?

You will still have to lookup the value somewhere, right?

from where are you loading your account? From R/3 or flat file??

hope this helps...

Olivier.

[Former Member]

I will suggest to go with the 1st approach.

Ravi Thothadri

[Former Member]

Hi Nandita,

In the cube if you have data at the Account level, it can always be summarised at account group level.

Do you want to load master data for these two infoobjects via flat file also?

you can make Account group as Navigational attribute of account and load master data for it.

Regards.

[Former Member]

didn't Ravi found the right answer? as I can see the thread was finally successfully closed

let us know if that wasn't the case and still need some support

Olivier.

[Former Member]

Hi,

Create a mapping infoobject ZMAP_ACCNT.

This IObj would have the same lenght and conversion than 0ACCOUNT.

It would also have your account group as attribute.

You would then load its master data via flat file for example (your account mapped to ZMAP_ACCNT, and your account group mapped to the account group).

When loading your transactional data, you would look up your mapping IObj and post the corresponfing account group.

I remember your post.... Why didn't you implement the your account group as NAV of 0ACCOUNT finally?

hope this helps...

Olivier.

[Former Member]

If you keep account level and account group in a hierarchy, then you have to have only account level in the cube. In report, the account levels belonging to a account group will be automaticaly summarised. But, you need to load hierarchy data whenever you load master data.

Ravi Thothadri

[Former Member]

Ravi,

I am still unclear about it. So do you mean just have account as a characteristic in the infocube and then have account group as an attribute of this characteristic? and then have account and account group in the hierarchy?

How would be the design if i want just account group in the hierarchy?

Thanks,

Nandita