Talk:ROLAP

message: Link to OLAP survey seems to be broken.
--125.238.20.170 (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I still feel that your edit is somewhat biased. For example, OLAP Survey (not that this is different from OLAP Report, even though done by the same person) found that ROLAP solutions scale to larger data volumes - and it is OK to list as advantage. However, the biggest disadvantage of ROLAP, found both by OLAP Survey and experienced by many practicioners somehow did not end up in the Disadvantages section. Your edit also almost discredits OLAP Survey findings, even though it did took into account complexity of models. I think it is fair to add that many practicioners/experts agree that ROLAP tends to be slower, although it is also possible to optimize it, especially with the most advanced tools. Wikiolap 07:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And here is what the OLAP authority, Nigel Pendse, says about ROLAP in OLAP Report:  - "Products in this sector draw all their data and metadata in a standard RDBMS, with none being stored in any external files. They are capable of dealing with very large data volumes, but are complex and expensive to implement, have a slow query performance and are incapable of performing complex financial calculations." Wikiolap 07:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried to list some of the reasons that ROLAP can suffer from poor performance.  I think that is more useful than a blanket statement that ROLAP has slower performance.  You have previously said that ROLAP be optimized to have the same performance as MOLAP. So the blanket statment is not true. The same page you linked to also says "not one ROLAP vendor has made a profit to date."  A quick look at MicroStrategy's financials show that to be false.  The OLAP Report Market share analysis shows MicroStrategy as profitable, and "likely to be found in the largest organizations" (versus "Microsoft Analysis Services is typically chosen by smaller organizations").  Nigel Pendse offers some great information, but is not perfect and is not completely without bias himself. Arcann 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course nobody is without bias - neither Nigel, nor me, nor you. However NPOV suggests that if significant number of people and/or prominent people (like Nigel) have certain POV - it has to be presented. I agree that blanket statement is not good. I will try to come up with better edit. I am probably going to use an example the following edit from you: "ROLAP tools are better at handling non-aggregatable facts or (e.g. textual descriptions). MOLAP tools tend to suffer from slow performance when quering these elements". Wikiolap 19:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I look forward to seeing your edit.  I did try to present what Nigel says about performance.  It's not strictly speaking in the disadvantages section, but it is right after it.  I originally had it in disadvantages but I wanted more room to explain.  Ultimately I feel that even Nigel is being inconsistent in saying that ROLAP is more scalable and yet has slower performance.  By definition more scalalble means that at large scales ROLAP performs better than MOLAP.  Many companies choose ROLAP for it's better scalability -- So even though they might not invest enough money in database hardware to get < 10 second response time from the tool, it is better than what they would have gotten from a MOLAP solution. Arcann 01:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance Surveys 

message: Propose merging MOLAP with ROLAP.
* They basically, if not completely, have the same text. Namely: a comparision between the two.
* Target page is ROLAP, arbitrarily. 
-DePiep (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No! They are fundamentally different. Both use a hypercube and star schema, but one needs an engine that supports this, the other is hosted on a COTS RDBMS platform. Merging would destroy this contrast. The fact that WP's current article might not make this absolutely clear is to be remedied, not seen as supporting evidence for a merge. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging does not imply that they are the same. After merging, the specific descriptions are still needed (as they are needed now). And both DWs can very well be implemented on a RDBMS machine. For the Multidimensional you also can use a cube-oriented application (BI-side), but both are functioning well with RDBMS-SQL. The fundamental difference you point at, is the presence of 3NF and up in the database-design. This is a difference that can well be covered in the text. After merging, the comparision (which is now about 85% of the text, in both articles, and mostly the same text), that comparision can and will stay. -DePiep (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Of course, the new title should not stay "ROLAP"... -DePiep (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

text: How about creating a single page called MOLAP vs. ROLAP, moving the two separate subsections there, and keeping the MOLAP and ROLAP entries for their specific descriptions?  Certainly it seems redundant to have two separate entries for M vs. R and R vs. M.  It's the same points that are made with the language simply being inverted.
Tlaresch (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Support merging into OLAP.--Dbrukman (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion