Skip to Content

Hi,

with BW on HANA, there are the options to stay more on the “classic” BW-development-path (development and modelling with mainly rsa1 and related transactions, use classic SAP extractors) or to move the development of BW applications and reporting more to the “SAP HANA Studio” path (extract data to HANA DB by replication, build data models there).

This post nicely illustrates different archtivetural overviews:

SAP BW on HANA  – Architecture options based on source systems

Decision there of what architecture is recommended was based on the question on which src. systems are used (consider e.g. standard extractors to SAP systems, which we activate/get “for free” in rsa1 suggest to continue more “classic”).

I would be interested in more documents that look at the architecture decision from other points of views, it would be nice if ou can provide them (links):

– Is there any roadmap from SAP that gives detail about the support of the different architectures? Is any of the paths pushed more _with good arguments_ (e.g. no sales slogans that “HANA is the future and HANA Studio is simply innvovative” 😉 )?

– BO 4.1 reporting on SAP BW on SAP HANA: for the different tools (I know, it will be hard to generalize, since tools also are connected to HANA differently, ODBC/JDBC/universes…/type of data in reports, …), are there significant speed benefits when using one tool with a direct HANA connection/universe than using BICS connection or the other way round (BICS was preferred for SAP BW without HANA…)?

– Any documents how development will become more integrated between the two paths (authorizations on invorprovider vs. analytical views directly in BW/rsa1 )?

– Any other arguments for more “rsa1” or more “SAP HANA Studio” modelling?

– …

Best Regards and thanks for your help!

To report this post you need to login first.

Be the first to leave a comment

You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.

Leave a Reply