Implementing Role-playing Dimensions in Power BI
Role-playing dimensions are a popular business requirement but yet challenging to implement in Power BI (and Tabular) due to a long-standing limitation that two tables can’t be joined multiple times with active relationships. Declarative relationships are both a blessing and a curse and, in this case, we are confronted with their limitations. Had Power BI allowed multiple relationships, the user must be prompted which path to take. Interestingly, a long time ago Microsoft considered a user interface for the prompting but dropped the idea for unknown reasons.
Given the existing technology limitations, you have two implementation choices for implementing subsequent role-playing dimensions: duplicating the dimension table (either in DW or semantic model) or denormalizing the dimension fields into the fact table. The following table presents pros and cons of each option:
| Option | Pros | Cons |
| Duplicate dimension table in semantic model or DW
| No or minimum impact on ETL Minimum maintenance in semantic model All dimension attributes are available | Metadata complexity and confusion (potentially mitigated with perspectives that will filter metadata for specific subject area) |
| Denormalizing fields from into fact table | Avoid role-playing dimension instances More intuitive model to business users | Increased fact table size and memory footprint Impact on ETL Limited number of dimension attributes Track visited dimension changes as Type 2 with incremental extraction (while it could be Type 1) If applicable, inability to reuse the role-playing dimension for another fact table and do cross-fact table analysis |
So, which approach should you take? The middle path might make sense. If you need only a limited number of fields for the second role-playing dimension, you could add them to the fact table to avoid another dimension and confusion. For example, if you have a DimEmployee dimension and you need a second instance for the person making the changes to the fact table, you can add the administrator’s full name to the fact table assuming you need only this field from DimEmployee.
By contrast, if you need most of the fields in the role-playing instances, then cloning might make more sense. For example, analyzing fact data by shipped date or due date that requires the established hierarchies in DimDate, could be addressed by cloning DimDate. Then to avoid confusion, consider using Tabular Editor to create perspectives for each subject area where each perspective includes only the role-playing dimensions applicable to that subject area.
Yet, a narrow-case third option exists when you only need role-playing measures, such as SalesAmountByShipDate and SalesAmountByDueDate. This scenario can be addressed by forcing DAX measures to “travel” the inactive relationship by using the USERELATIONSHIP function.
