4 ms·

Could you elaborate on why you think data-modeling is a solved problem? It’s seems like an opinion warranting more than a one word explanation.

mumblemumble 7y ago
I'm guessing that the implication was that Kimball's dimensional modeling techniques (so, in a nutshell, snowflake and star schemata) will get the job done in almost any case. I'm not sure I would 100% agree with that - e.g., denormalization, while useful for many things, isn't always your best option. But I would say that that there are a lot of tools in the box, and that is absolutely one of the critical ones to know.
- atwebb 7y ago
  > denormalization, while useful for many things, isn't always your best option. From my view, it is generally not a good option for cases it wasn't designed for, an example being non-analytical reporting. If you are running operational support, getting the source data immediately and aggregating/displaying can be more helpful than modeling for analytics workloads. The line between these is blurred in most orgs. To the OPs point, data modeling seems like a sidenote in most analytical discussions. You can accomplish a lot using the star model which is essentially: Prepare things to be fast by sorting them into proper groups (fact/dim/bridge) Rely on ints Store atomic data Provide summaries/aggregates Model after the questions you ask; not the system it comes from
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  I think Kimball's approach stumbles a bit because it needs bitemporalism to rescue it from its own temporal hackery. But for a lot of things it works pretty well at what it does. It's useful to have a body of work formed over many years, tested in many demanding scenarios, providing some sort of structured guidance. Twitter and blog posts and random tinkering don't rise to the same level.

4 ms·

Could you elaborate on why you think data-modeling is a solved problem? It’s seems like an opinion warranting more than a one word explanation.

by boublepop 7y ago

mumblemumble 7y ago
I'm guessing that the implication was that Kimball's dimensional modeling techniques (so, in a nutshell, snowflake and star schemata) will get the job done in almost any case. I'm not sure I would 100% agree with that - e.g., denormalization, while useful for many things, isn't always your best option. But I would say that that there are a lot of tools in the box, and that is absolutely one of the critical ones to know.
- atwebb 7y ago
  > denormalization, while useful for many things, isn't always your best option. From my view, it is generally not a good option for cases it wasn't designed for, an example being non-analytical reporting. If you are running operational support, getting the source data immediately and aggregating/displaying can be more helpful than modeling for analytics workloads. The line between these is blurred in most orgs. To the OPs point, data modeling seems like a sidenote in most analytical discussions. You can accomplish a lot using the star model which is essentially: Prepare things to be fast by sorting them into proper groups (fact/dim/bridge) Rely on ints Store atomic data Provide summaries/aggregates Model after the questions you ask; not the system it comes from
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  I think Kimball's approach stumbles a bit because it needs bitemporalism to rescue it from its own temporal hackery. But for a lot of things it works pretty well at what it does. It's useful to have a body of work formed over many years, tested in many demanding scenarios, providing some sort of structured guidance. Twitter and blog posts and random tinkering don't rise to the same level.