Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Oracle Exam 1Z0-588 Topic 6 Question 80 Discussion

Actual exam question for Oracle's 1Z0-588 exam
Question #: 80
Topic #: 6
[All 1Z0-588 Questions]

You have three hierarchies for the Entity dimension. One hierarchy rolls up entities by geography, one hierarchy rolls up entities by function, and one hierarchy rolls up entities by legal structure. In your Hyperion Financial Management (HFM) application, these three hierarchies exist within a single Entity dimension. You want to be able to manage the properties for the nodes once.

Identify the three ways that DRM can be designed to support this requirement.

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A, B, C

Contribute your Thoughts:

Andra
2 months ago
I'm with Jennifer on this one. Option E is the way to go. Who needs all that manual hierarchy management when you've got the Blend feature? Efficiency is key, am I right?
upvoted 0 times
Irma
1 months ago
Efficiency is definitely key when it comes to managing hierarchies. Option E seems like the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Anglea
2 months ago
I think Option E is the best choice too. It's all about streamlining processes for better efficiency.
upvoted 0 times
...
Claudia
2 months ago
Definitely, manual hierarchy management can be a hassle. Using the Blend feature would save a lot of time and effort.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vivan
2 months ago
I agree, Option E with the Blend feature sounds like the most efficient way to manage those hierarchies.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tyisha
2 months ago
That's a good point, but I still think having all structures in one hierarchy like option B would make it easier to manage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jennifer
2 months ago
Haha, talk about a headache! Managing three hierarchies in one dimension is like trying to herd cats. I'll take option E and use the Blend feature - at least that way I won't have to worry about keeping everything straight.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tess
2 months ago
I'm not sure about that. Maintaining separate hierarchies in their own versions and then setting the relationships seems like a more robust approach to me. Option C looks good.
upvoted 0 times
Titus
2 months ago
Agreed. It seems like a more organized way to manage the properties for the nodes.
upvoted 0 times
...
Beckie
2 months ago
That makes sense. Setting the Geography hierarchy as Primary and the others as Shared nodes seems like a good approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lang
2 months ago
I think option C is the way to go. It allows you to maintain each hierarchy in its own version.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Viva
3 months ago
I disagree, I believe option C is more efficient as it allows us to maintain each hierarchy in its own version.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tyisha
3 months ago
I think option B is the best choice because it allows us to have all three structures in one hierarchy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kimberely
3 months ago
Option B makes the most sense. Combining the hierarchies into a single structure with the Geography as the primary and the others as shared nodes seems like the cleanest solution.
upvoted 0 times
Dacia
2 months ago
Yes, having the Geography hierarchy as the primary one simplifies the management process.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zita
2 months ago
I agree, Option B does seem like the most logical choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77