I'm currently building an ETL system to load a data warehouse from a transactional system. The grain of my fact table is the transaction level. In order to ensure I don't load duplicate rows I've put a primary key on the fact table, which is the transaction ID.
I've encountered a problem with transactions being reversed - In the transact开发者_Go百科ional database this is done via a status, which I pick up and I can work out if the transaction is being done, or rolled back so I can load a reversal row in the warehouse. However, the reversal row will have the same transaction ID and so I get a primary key violation.
I've solved this for now by negating the primary key, so transaction ID 1 would be a payment, and transaction ID -1 (In the warehouse only) would be the reversal.
I have considered an alternative of generating a BIT column, where 0 is normal and 1 is reversal, then making the PK the transaction ID and the BIT column.
My question is, is this a good practice, and has anyone else encountered anything like this? For reference, this is a payment processing system, so values will not be modified, so there will only ever be transactions and reversals.
In most cases, a fact table has a primary key which is a composite of several FKs. So, maybe you could use a combination of the TransactionID and a FK to dimTransactionType
as the primary key.
The dimTransactionType
would look something like:
TransactionTypeKey integer
TransactionTypeName varchar(20)
and would have
0, 'unknown'
1, 'normal'
2, 'reversal'
Tinkering with bits and flags is not recommended in a DW -- verbose as much as possible.
A common approach to designing fact tables is to use surrogate keys as the primary keys. A large integer value is usually sufficient. If transaction id is a foreign key to a dimension record, then it should not be used as a primary key in the fact table. Your surrogate key logic (i.e. trigger for a new record in the fact table) can be based on a combination of the transaction id and the transaction type.
精彩评论