3×3 Worst Development Practices 2010 with SSIS, SSAS and SSRS

There are some practices which are outright bad and some which are sometimes bad. I will try to make a list of top three outright worst practices per the main components of SSIS, SSAS and SSRS which I have annoyed me most throughout 2010 (and previous years). I am sure there are many more, but these are ones which I have witnessed often enough to deserve some attention.


Using default names for all components in a control flow and a data flow

I really dislike opening projects and seeing only generic names. I have built some in the past because of insufficient time to document everything, but I hated creating them and later leaving them like that. I have also seen developers with time on their hands carelessly omitting them. The worst practice is to actually rename them to an equally unintelligible, if better, language. Many ETL-out-of-the-box tools actually do that and make subsequent maintenance much harder.

Performing joins with Merge Join

Chaining 5 Merge Joins and placing Sort components between them is something SQL Server does faster and with much less resources. Therefore doing joins in the database is a no-brainer even if your preference lies with a fully SSIS-idised process.

Not using configurations

Lucky, in Denali we are getting a completely revamped project configurations approach. Even if imperfect, Package Configurations are a must for every SSIS project. Migrating projects, changing databases, setting variables are just too good to miss.


Using MDX for everything

MDX has an aura of a language which allows you to do everything much faster than SQL. Well, this is not entirely true and in the majority of cases a change in the design will allow avoidance of MDX, which in turn removes a whole layer of complexity allowing tremendous improvements over any programmatical approach.

Importing too much dimensional data

Often developers underestimate the impact of unnecessarily large dimensions with many useless attributes. Here the best approach is to add more as you need them rather than import everything because we can. Cubes are smaller and less complex with less attributes, processing is faster, and the most important thing is that the users actually like having less clutter.

Leaving NULLs in the relational database

SSAS does not like NULLs. I have not seen a case when NULLs are necessary in dimension tables. While I would leave a NULL for a measure when there is no data for it, too many of these can be quite harmful and it may be a case of a bloated measure group, as well.


Storing business logic in report queries

While we can, we should never store SQL and MDX logic which can be implemented in stored procedures or calculated measures in the reports. Maintaining SSRS queries is much harder and less transparent. There are performance implications around caching, too.

Merging data sets in SSRS

This is hard to be done, and when it is, it is always bad. Data sets should be merged in the queries – not in the reports.

Building massive reports

In many organizations reports are seen as a transport mechanism to Excel. Users generate large, hundreds of thousands of rows report with a large amount of columns and sometimes even basic calculations. All this can be done simply and easily on the database level without going through SSRS.


2 thoughts on “3×3 Worst Development Practices 2010 with SSIS, SSAS and SSRS”

  1. I am a BI Developer ..I need a clarification on this topic..
    Could you please the concept of “Using MDX for everything” in SSAS …


  2. Hi Rajesh,

    I see solutions with excessive use of MDX. In example, leaf-level calcs, many-to-many relationships and semi-additive aggregations are among the things which can be achieved with zero MDX and with significant performance and maintenance benefit through good SSAS db design.


Comments are closed.