aggregation size Data measure group 10% 13% 13% 11% aggregation reduction in size compared to fact size Intermediate measure 5,543 15,616 145,958 192,322 group fact size Intermediate measure 557 1,470 13,418 17,711 group aggregation size Intermediate measure 90% 91% 91% 91% group aggregation reduction in size compared to fact size 3 Data measure group fact 1,111 2,934 26,783 32,140 size Data measure group 808 2134 9,246 9,982 aggregation size Data measure group 27% 27% 65% 69% aggregation reduction in size compared to fact size Intermediate measure 93,587 group fact size Intermediate measure 8,686 group aggregation size Intermediate measure 91% group aggregation reduction in size compared to fact size Intermediate Intermediate measure 61% measure group fact size reduction group size between cube design 1 comparison and 3 Intermediate measure 54% group aggregation size reduction between cube design 1 and 3 With Scenario 3, notice the following: The size of the intermediate fact table with cube design 3 is 61% smaller than with cube designs 1 and 2 (and the aggregation in the intermediate measure group is 54% smaller than the aggregation in cube design 1). This reduction is size is less than with scenarios 1 and 2, but is still significant. The aggregation sizes for the partitions in the data measure group for cube design 3 are a larger fraction of the size of their corresponding facts than we saw with
aggregation size Data measure group aggregation reduction in size compared to fact size 10% 13% 13% 11% Intermediate measure group fact size 5,543 15,616 145,958 192,322 Intermediate measure group aggregation size 557 1,470 13,418 17,711 Intermediate measure group aggregation reduction in size compared to fact size 90% 91% 91% 91% 3 Data measure group fact size 1,111 2,934 26,783 32,140 Data measure group aggregation size 808 2134 9,246 9,982 Data measure group aggregation reduction in size compared to fact size 27% 27% 65% 69% Intermediate measure group fact size 93,587 Intermediate measure group aggregation size 8,686 Intermediate measure group aggregation reduction in size compared to fact size 91% Intermediate measure group size comparison Intermediate measure group fact size reduction between cube design 1 and 3 61% Intermediate measure group aggregation size reduction between cube design 1 and 3 54% With Scenario 3, notice the following: The size of the intermediate fact table with cube design 3 is 61% smaller than with cube designs 1 and 2 (and the aggregation in the intermediate measure group is 54% smaller than the aggregation in cube design 1). This reduction is size is less than with scenarios 1 and 2, but is still significant. The aggregation sizes for the partitions in the data measure group for cube design 3 are a larger fraction of the size of their corresponding facts than we saw with