Data Profiling For All The Right Reasons, Part 4

The Hub Designs Blog welcomes Part 4 of this series by Rob DuMoulin, an information architect with more than 26 years of IT experience, specializing in master data management, database administration and design, and business intelligence.

Part 4: Profiling Relationships and Patterns

This is part four of a five-part series describing how data profiling assists in all aspects of system development, from design through deployment.

Part One introduced different perspectives on data profiling. Part Two identified valuable system and entity metrics to track. Part Three discussed attributes. In this segment, we dive deeper into attribute relationships and pattern recognition. Also, we expand on primary key identification discussion and discuss hidden relationships.

Pattern grouping provides a mask of distinct format patterns within an attribute data set and a count of the number of occurrences. Patterns give insight into the type of values found in an attribute. For example, a numeric pattern analysis may show values such as 999.99999, 99, or -.9999.

Observing distinct patterns gives insight into the maximum digits and precision, and also domains such as integer or real. Pattern of a database date or date-time type provides unremarkably similar patterns for all dates. Because the database management system typically enforces the domain, date analysis provides no value and can be ignored. If dates are stored in character format, however, patterns quickly show variations in date formatting. Character patterns only have significance to a limited number of positions. It makes no sense to pattern a description field of 200 or 2000 characters. Smaller code attributes of less than 10 characters though do provide value. Ignore pattern profiling for character strings over 20 characters at first, then refine to shorter character strings if the results do not add value.

In pure database theory, referential integrity (RI) is your friend. In practice, designers and software vendors often forgo RI to improve system performance on data inserts. These designers place the data quality burden on the application and do not endorse external data manipulation outside the application interfaces. In the real world, though, data corruption occurs and without RI or routine data quality checks, corruptions may not be found for a long time or not at all. Personally, I have identified over $50,000 of recent orphaned sales in a retail client resulting from deliberately disabled RI. These unreported sales were not added to the ledger and were allowed to occur for performance reasons until I found them through simple profiling. Enforcement of RI is a topic for another discussion but is mentioned here because it does identify a valid reason for data profiling.

In even presumably good relational designs, some parent-child relationships are not enforced for different reasons. First, interrogate the RI listed in the system catalogs to identify all enforced relationships. Reverse-engineering a system with a good modeling tool is probably the best way to do this. A harder and more valuable analysis is to identify unenforced relationships and determining the probability of the relationship if not all values are an exact match. Do this by counting all the candidate child attribute values that exist within a known parent attribute table. If all match and there are a non-trivial number of matches, there is a good probability of a non-identified relationship. A small number of mismatches could identify data quality issues.

In Part 5, we tie all the techniques discussed in the first four parts together to show the value of a repeatable data profiling process.

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: