Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

SAP C_HAMOD_2404 Exam - Topic 3 Question 35 Discussion

You want to create a star schema using a calculation view. The measures are based on columns from two transaction tables. DIMENSION calculation views provide the attributes.What is the correct approach?
C) Combine the transaction tables using a join node in a CUBE calculation view. * Use a star join node to join the DIMENSIONS to the resulting fact table.
A) Combine the transaction tables using a star join node in a CUBE calculation view. * Use a join node to join the DIMENSIONS to the resulting fact table.
B) Combine the transaction tables using a join node in a CUBE calculation view. * Combine the DIMENSIONS using another join node. * Use a star join node to combine both resulting fact and dimension tables.
D) Combine the transaction tables using an aggregation node in a CUBE calculation view. * Use a star join node to join the DIMENSIONS to the resulting fact table.

SAP C_HAMOD_2404 Exam - Topic 3 Question 35 Discussion

Actual exam question for SAP's C_HAMOD_2404 exam
Question #: 35
Topic #: 3
[All C_HAMOD_2404 Questions]

You want to create a star schema using a calculation view. The measures are based on columns from two transaction tables. DIMENSION calculation views provide the attributes.What is the correct approach?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

by Stevie at Aug 02, 2025, 11:56 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium C_HAMOD_2404 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Jaclyn
7 months ago
Is it really that straightforward? I have my doubts.
upvoted 0 times
...
Peggie
7 months ago
Definitely not D, that doesn't fit the star schema concept.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fletcher
7 months ago
Wait, why would you use an aggregation node? Seems off.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carma
7 months ago
I think option B is the way to go!
upvoted 0 times
...
Albina
7 months ago
A star schema usually involves a star join node for dimensions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gregg
8 months ago
I recall that using an aggregation node is usually for summarizing data, so option D doesn’t seem right to me. I think it should be a join node instead.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rebbecca
8 months ago
I’m a bit confused about whether to use a star join or just a regular join for the dimensions. I feel like I’ve seen both approaches in different examples.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rosenda
8 months ago
I think option B sounds familiar because it mentions using a join node for both the transaction tables and dimensions, which seems like a common practice question we went over.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chantay
9 months ago
I remember we discussed the importance of using star join nodes for combining dimensions with fact tables, but I'm not sure if it's always in a CUBE view.
upvoted 0 times
...
Noble
9 months ago
This is a good test of my knowledge on star schemas and calculation views. I'll carefully read through each option and eliminate the ones that don't seem quite right.
upvoted 0 times
...
Janet
9 months ago
I'm feeling pretty confident about this one. The key is to use the join node to combine the transaction tables, then the star join to link the dimensions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Demetra
9 months ago
Okay, I think I've got a strategy. I'll focus on using the CUBE calculation view and the star join node to connect the fact and dimension tables.
upvoted 0 times
...
Silvana
9 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused by the different nodes mentioned in the options. I'll need to make sure I understand how to properly combine the transaction tables and dimensions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Judy
10 months ago
This looks like a tricky question. I'll need to carefully review the options and think through the steps to create the star schema.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annelle
10 months ago
This is a tricky one. I'm torn between options C and D. Both involve using a CUBE calculation view and a star join node, but the way they handle the transaction tables is different. I guess it depends on the specific requirements of the scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rodney
10 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure about that. Option B looks more straightforward to me. Combining the transaction tables, then the DIMENSIONS, and using a star join node to bring it all together seems more intuitive.
upvoted 0 times
Ashlyn
6 months ago
I’m leaning towards Option A, though. It seems simpler with fewer steps.
upvoted 0 times
...
Patrick
6 months ago
I think Option B is the best choice too. It makes sense to combine everything step by step.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brianne
8 months ago
Yeah, I agree! The star join node really helps in organizing the data.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rusty
8 months ago
But B gives a clearer structure. I’d stick with that for sure!
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Helene
10 months ago
Hmm, that does make sense. Option C might be the optimal approach after all.
upvoted 0 times
...
Izetta
11 months ago
I think option C is the best choice, it combines the transaction tables using a join node and then uses a star join node for the dimensions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Walton
11 months ago
I think option C is the correct approach. Combining the transaction tables using a join node in a CUBE calculation view and then using a star join node to join the DIMENSIONS to the resulting fact table seems like the logical way to create a star schema.
upvoted 0 times
Alva
10 months ago
I agree, option C seems like the best approach for creating a star schema.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Sol
11 months ago
But option A combines the transaction tables using a star join node, which is more efficient.
upvoted 0 times
...
Helene
11 months ago
I disagree, I believe option B is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sol
11 months ago
I think the correct approach is option A.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel