To achieve an urgent business requirement, you choose the field-based approach because no complex harmonization is needed. Assuming the LSA++ architecture is considered, and you want to leverage a…

Question

Options

• AIn the SAP BW Datastore Object (advanced)
• BIn the SAP BW Open ODS view
• CIn the SAP HANA calculation view
• DIn the SAP BW CompositeProvider

• A
  4% (2)
• B
  6% (3)
• C
  14% (7)
• D
  76% (37)

Explanation

In LSA++ with the field-based approach, the CompositeProvider is the last layer where an InfoObject must be assigned because it is the semantic integration point directly consumed by BW queries. Characteristic hierarchies are a property of BW InfoObjects, and assigning them at the CompositeProvider level is what exposes hierarchy navigation to the reporting layer - making D correct.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A (DSO advanced): This sits lower in the architecture (inbound/persistence layer). The field-based approach's entire advantage is that you skip InfoObject assignments at this level, avoiding unnecessary harmonization.
• B (Open ODS View): Also a lower, virtualization layer. Open ODS views can reference raw fields without InfoObject assignments - that flexibility is the point of the field-based approach.
• C (HANA Calculation View): This is a pure HANA artifact with no BW InfoObject semantics. BW characteristic hierarchies simply cannot be defined or leveraged here.

Memory tip: Think of the CompositeProvider as the "last customs checkpoint" before data reaches the query. Everything passing through for reporting must be declared (assigned as an InfoObject) here - including hierarchies. Below it, the field-based approach lets you travel light.

No community discussion yet for this question.