SAP C_HAMOD_2404 Exam - Topic 3 Question 35 Discussion

Actual exam question for SAP's C_HAMOD_2404 exam

Question #: 35
Topic #: 3

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?

ACombine 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.

BCombine 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.

CCombine 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.

DCombine 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.

Show Suggested 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:

Submit Cancel

Jaclyn

2 months ago

Is it really that straightforward? I have my doubts.

upvoted 0 times

...

Peggie

2 months ago

Definitely not D, that doesn't fit the star schema concept.

upvoted 0 times

...

Fletcher

2 months ago

Wait, why would you use an aggregation node? Seems off.

upvoted 0 times

...

Carma

2 months ago

I think option B is the way to go!

upvoted 0 times

...

Albina

3 months ago

A star schema usually involves a star join node for dimensions.

upvoted 0 times

...

Gregg

3 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

3 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

4 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

4 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

4 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

4 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

4 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

5 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

5 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

5 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

5 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

1 month ago

I’m leaning towards Option A, though. It seems simpler with fewer steps.

upvoted 0 times

...

Patrick

2 months ago

I think Option B is the best choice too. It makes sense to combine everything step by step.

upvoted 0 times

...

Brianne

3 months ago

Yeah, I agree! The star join node really helps in organizing the data.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rusty

3 months ago

But B gives a clearer structure. I’d stick with that for sure!

upvoted 0 times

...

Helene

5 months ago

Hmm, that does make sense. Option C might be the optimal approach after all.

upvoted 0 times

...

Izetta

6 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

6 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