week numbers are quite disorganized

[Robert]

Hello,

I'm using Project Server 2007 with SP1 + IU
I built a pivot table view in the OLAP Cube, with a timescale of 22 weeks
from 1st of January 2009.
But the week numbers are quite disorganized. I can accept to understand that
a week can be spread over 2 months, but the week 9 appears 2 times,
separated by 5 other weeks. (see below) I'm afraid that many users will get
disorientated.
Is it possible to avoid this stupid numbering ? Thanks for your help

Week1
Week2
Week3
Week4
Week5
Week5
Week6
Week7
Week8
Week9
Week10
Week11
Week12
Week13
Week14
Week9
Week14
Week15
Week16
Week17
Week18
Week18
Week19
Week20
Week21
Week22

 

[Ben Howard]

Hi Robert,
You must have run into a bug here, it's not something I've seen before and
it certainly isn't meant to work like that. Are you just using the Time
dimension (rather than say financial or timesheet periods). What happens if
you rebuild the cube. Is it all cubes or just one? What measures are you
viewing?

 

[Robert]

Hi Ben,

I'm actually using the Time dimension. If i change the scale from weeks to
months, the ordering of months is OK.
The measures are Work and Cumulative Work (with a formula)
Robert

 

[Mike Mahoney]

Hi Ben,

I'm actually using the Time dimension. If i change the scale from weeks to
months, the ordering of months is OK.
The measures are Work and Cumulative Work (with a formula)
Robert

"Ben Howard" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message
de946D8FF0-51BE-43F1-9B21-2B2103B90__BEGIN_MASK_n#[email protected]...






- Show quoted text -

Robert

If you build a completely new view (from scratch) does it still behave
this way?

regards

Mike

 

[Robert]

"Mike Mahoney" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de (e-mail address removed)...

Hi Ben,

I'm actually using the Time dimension. If i change the scale from weeks to
months, the ordering of months is OK.
The measures are Work and Cumulative Work (with a formula)
Robert

"Ben Howard" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message
de946D8FF0-51BE-43F1-9B21-2B2103B90__BEGIN_MASK_n#[email protected]...






- Show quoted text -

Robert

If you build a completely new view (from scratch) does it still behave
this way?

regards

Mike

Mike,
It's already a new view built on a new cube (just built for the year 2009)
Robert

 

[Mike Mahoney]

"Mike Mahoney" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de (e-mail address removed)...





Robert

If you build a completely new view (from scratch) does it still behave
this way?

regards

Mike

Mike,
It's already a new view built on a new cube (just built for the year 2009)
Robert- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Robert

I am sure it is, but it is misbehaving. The use of time dimenison is
pretty standard fare, so need to look elsewher for the cause of the
problem. The choices you haveare really to create new cubes or new
view or both. You don't actiually say which cube you are using - why
don't you try one of the other timephased cubes and see what response
you get.

regrads

Mike

regards

Mike

 

[Robert]

Hi Mike,

"Mike Mahoney" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de (e-mail address removed)...

"Mike Mahoney" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de (e-mail address removed)...





Robert

If you build a completely new view (from scratch) does it still behave
this way?

regards

Mike

Mike,
It's already a new view built on a new cube (just built for the year 2009)
Robert- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

<Robert

<I am sure it is, but it is misbehaving. The use of time dimenison is
<pretty standard fare, so need to look elsewher for the cause of the
<problem. The choices you haveare really to create new cubes or new
<view or both. You don't actiually say which cube you are using - why
<don't you try one of the other timephased cubes and see what response
<you get.

<regrads

<Mike

Mike,

I'm using the MSP_Portfolio_Analyser cube.
You are right : I'll try to use some other timephased cubes.
I'll tell you if I find something interesting.
Thanks

Robert