Kimball vs. Inmon
Inmon:
Subject-Oriented
Integrated
Non-Volatile
Time-Variant
Top-Down
Integration Achieved
via an Assumed Enterprise Data Model
Characterizes Data
marts as Aggregates
Kimball
Business-Process-Oriented
Bottom-Up and
Evolutionary
Stresses Dimensional
Model, Not E-R
Integration Achieved
via Conformed Dimensions
Star Schemas Enforce
Query Semantics
|
|
Inmon
|
Kimball
|
|
Overall approach
|
Top-down
|
Bottom-up
|
|
Architectural structure
|
Enterprise-wide DW
feeds departmental DBs |
Data marts model a
business process; enterprise is achieved with conformed dimensions |
|
Complexity of method
|
Quite complex
|
Fairly simple
|
|
Data orientation
|
Subject or data driven
|
Process oriented
|
|
Tools
|
Traditional (ERDs and
DIS) |
Dimensional modeling;
departs from traditional relational modeling |
|
End user accessibility
|
Low
|
High
|
|
Timeframe
|
Continuous & Discrete
|
Slowly Changing
|
|
Methods
|
Timestamps
|
Dimension keys
|
Kimball Slowly Changing Dimension
Management
Define
data management via versioning
Type I
Change record as
required
No History
Type II
Manage all changes
History is recorded
Type III
Some history is
parallel
Limit to defined
history
Inmon Continuous & Discrete Dimension
Management
Define data management via dates in your data
Continuous time
When is a record
active
Start and end dates
Discrete time
A point in time
Snapshot
The Comparison(Philosophy)
No comments:
Post a Comment