问题描述
行业中有哪些企业报告选项?我目前使用的是 SSRS 2005，并且知道新版本的 MSSQL 会推出另一个版本.
What options are there in the industry for enterprise reporting? I'm currently using SSRS 2005, and know that there is another version coming out with the new release of MSSQL.
但是，现在似乎也是调查市场以了解其他市场情况的好时机.
But, it seems like it might also be a good time to investigate the market to see what else is out there.
你遇到了什么?你喜欢/不喜欢吗?为什么?
What have you encountered? Do you like it/dislike it? Why?
谢谢.
推荐答案
我使用过 Cognos Series 7、Cognos Series 8、Crystal Reports、Business Objects XI R2 WebIntelligence、Reporting Services 2000、Reporting Services 2005 和 Reporting Services 2008. 以下是我对所学内容的反馈:
I've used Cognos Series 7, Cognos Series 8, Crystal Reports, Business Objects XI R2 WebIntelligence, Reporting Services 2000, Reporting Services 2005, and Reporting Services 2008. Here's my feedback on what I've learned:
报告服务 2008/2005/2000
优点
成本:如果您使用 MS SQL Server 作为后端，那么最便宜的企业商业智能解决方案.如果您加入 SSIS，您还可以免费获得一流的 ETL 解决方案.
Cost: Cheapest enterprise business intelligence solution if you are using MS SQL Server as a back-end. You also have a best-in-class ETL solution at no additional cost if you throw in SSIS.
最灵活:我用过的最灵活的报告解决方案.它始终满足我的所有业务需求，尤其是在其最新版本中.
Most Flexible: Most flexible reporting solution I've ever used. It has always met all my business needs, particularly in its latest incarnation.
易于扩展:我们最初将其用作支持大约 20 个用户的部门解决方案.我们最终将其扩展到覆盖数千名用户.尽管在远程数据中心有一个质量非常差的虚拟服务器，我们还是能够扩展到大约 50-100 个并发用户请求.在咨询演出的良好硬件上，我能够将其扩展到更大的并发用户集，没有任何问题.我还见过在不同国家部署多个 SSRS 服务器并使用 SSIS 同步后端数据的实现.这允许以分布式方式实现稳定的性能，几乎不需要额外成本.
Easily Scalable: We initially used this as a departmental solution supporting about 20 users. We eventually expanded it to cover a few thousand users. Despite having a really bad quality virtual server located in a remote data center, we were able to scale to about 50-100 concurrent user requests. On good hardware at a consulting gig, I was able to scale it to a larger set of concurrent users without any issues. I've also seen implementations where multiple SSRS servers were deployed in different countries and SSIS was used to synch the data in the back-ends. This allowed for solid performance in a distributed manner at almost no additional cost.
源代码控制集成:在与我的商业智能团队一起开发报告时，这对我来说至关重要.没有其他 BI 套件为此提供我曾经使用过的开箱即用解决方案.我使用的所有其他平台要么需要购买第 3 方加载项，要么需要您在单独的开发、测试和生产环境之间推广报告.
Source Control Integration: This is CRITICAL to me when developing reports with my business intelligence teams. No other BI suite offers an out-of-box solution for this that I've ever used. Every other platform I used either required purchasing a 3rd party add-in or required you to promote reports between separate development, test, and production environments.
分析服务:我喜欢 SSRS 和 SSIS 之间与分析服务的紧密集成.我读过有关 Oracle 和 DB2 引用包括为 OLAP 多维数据集安装 SQL Server 2005 Analysis Services 服务器的实例.
Analysis Services: I like the tight integration with Analysis Services between SSRS and SSIS. I've read about instances where Oracle and DB2 quotes include installing a SQL Server 2005 Analysis Services server for OLAP cubes.
可发现性:没有系统比 SSRS 具有更好的可发现性.SSRS 上的书籍、论坛、文章和代码站点比我用过的任何其他 BI 套件都要多.如果我需要弄清楚如何在 SSRS 中做某事，我几乎总能通过几分钟或几小时的工作找到它.
Discoverability: No system has better discoverability than SSRS. There are more books, forums, articles, and code sites on SSRS than any other BI suite that I've ever used. If I needed to figuire out how to do something in SSRS, I could almost always find it with a few minutes or hours of work.
缺点
SSRS 2005/2000 需要 IIS:旧版本的 SSRS 需要在数据库服务器上安装 IIS.当我在一家大型银行工作时，从内部控制的角度来看，这是不允许的.我们最终在未经 IT 运营部门授权批准的情况下实施了 SSRS，后来基本上请求原谅.这在 SSRS 2008 中不是问题，因为不再需要 IIS.
报表生成器:SSRS 2000 中不存在基于 Web 的报表生成器.SSRS 2005 中的基于 Web 的报表生成器难以使用且功能不足.SSRS 2008 中基于 Web 的报表生成器肯定更好，但对于大多数业务用户来说仍然太难使用.
Report Builder: The web-based report builder was non-existant in SSRS 2000. The web-based report builder in SSRS 2005 was difficult to use and did not have enough functionality. The web-based report builder in SSRS 2008 is definitely better, but it is still too difficult to use for most business users.
数据库偏差:它与 Microsoft SQL Server 配合使用效果最佳.它不适用于 Oracle、DB2 和其他后端.
Database Bias: It works best with Microsoft SQL Server. It isn't great with Oracle, DB2, and other back-ends.
Business Objects XI WebIntelligence
优点
易用性:对于普通的非 BI 最终用户来说，最容易使用来开发临时报告.
Ease of Use: Easiest to use for your average non-BI end-user for developing ad hoc reports.
数据库不可知:如果您希望使用 Oracle、DB2 或其他数据库后端，这绝对是一个不错的解决方案.
Database Agnostic: Definitely a good solution if you expect to use Oracle, DB2, or another database back-end.
性能:性能非常快，因为大多数页面导航基本上都是文件系统操作，而不是数据库调用.
Performant: Very fast performance since most of the page navigations are basically file-system operations instead of database-calls.
缺点
成本:第一个问题.如果我想将 Business Objects 的实施从 30 个用户扩展到 1000 个用户，那么 SAP 肯定会向您收取几十万美元的费用.这仅适用于 Business Objects 许可证.再加上您还需要数据库服务器许可证，您现在谈论的是一个非常昂贵的系统.当然，这可能是获得 Business Objects 的个人理由:如果您可以说服管理层购买非常昂贵的 BI 系统，那么您可能可以说服管理层为大型 BI 部门付费.
Cost: Number one problem. If I want to scale up my implementation of Business Objects from 30 users to 1000 users, then SAP will make certain to charge you a few hundred thousands of dollars. And that's just for the Business Objects licenses. Add in the fact that you will also need database server licenses, you are now talking about a very expensive system. Of course, that could be the personal justification for getting Business Objects: if you can convince management to purchase a very expensive BI system, then you can probably convince management to pay for a large BI department.
没有源代码控制:缺乏开箱即用的源代码控制集成会导致意外修改和错误部署旧报告定义的错误.对此的解决方法"是在环境之间推广报告——我不喜欢这样做，因为它会减慢报告的开发速度并引入环境差异变量.
No Source Control: Lack of out-of-the-box source control integration leads to errors in accidentally modifying and deploying old report definitions by mistake. The "work-around" for this is promote reports between environments -- a process that I do NOT like to do since it slows down report development and introduces environmental differences variables.
无 HTML 电子邮件支持:您无法通过计划发送 HTML 电子邮件.我经常在 SSRS 中这样做.您可以购买昂贵的第 3 方加载项来执行此操作，但您不必为此功能花费更多的钱.
No HTML Email Support: You cannot send an HTML email via a schedule. I regularly do this in SSRS. You can buy an expensive 3rd party add-in to do this, but you shouldn't have to spend more money for this functionality.
模型偏差:报表开发需要宇宙——基本上是一个数据模型.这对于临时报告开发来说很好，但我更喜欢使用存储过程来完全控制性能.我还喜欢构建平面表，然后查询这些表以避免在报告运行时进行昂贵的复杂连接.必须构建仅包含仅由一个报表使用的平面表的 Universe 是愚蠢的.您不必为了查询表而构建模型.如果不破解 SQL 覆盖，也不支持开箱即用的存储过程支持.
Model Bias: Report development requires universes -- basically a data model. That's fine for ad hoc report development, but I prefer to use stored procedures to have full control of performance. I also like to build flat tables that are then queried to avoid costly complex joins during report run-time. It is silly to have to build universes that just contain flat tables that are only used by one report. You shouldn't have to build a model just to query a table. Store procedure support is also not supported out of the box without hacking the SQL Overrides.
参数支持不佳:BOXI WebIntelligence 报告中的参数支持很糟糕.虽然我喜欢一般业务用户的元数据刷新选项，但在尝试设置计划时它不够强大.我几乎总是需要克隆报告并稍微更改过滤器，这会导致不必要的报告定义重复.SSRS 击败了这一点，特别是因为您可以使值和标签具有不同的值——与 BOXI 不同.
Poor Parameter Support: Parameter support is terrible in BOXI WebIntelligence reports. Although I like the meta-data refresh options for general business users, it just isn't robust enough when trying to setup schedules. I almost always have to clone reports and alter the filters slightly which leads to unnecessary report definition duplication. SSRS beats this hands down, particularly since you can make the value and the label have different values -- unlike BOXI.
报告链接支持不足:我想将一个报告定义存储在一个中央文件夹中，然后为其他用户创建链接报告.但是，我很快发现最终用户需要对父对象拥有完全权限才能在他们自己的文件夹中使用该对象.这违背了使用链接报表对象的全部目的.给我 SSRS！
Inadequate Report Linking Support: I wanted to store one report definition in a central folder and then create linked reports for other users. However, I quickly found out end-users needed to have full rights on the parent object to use the object in their own folder. This defeated the entire purpose of using a linked report object. Give me SSRS!
单独的 CMC:为什么您必须启动另一个应用程序来管理您的对象安全?更糟糕的是，为什么 CMC 和 InfoSys 之间的功能不相同?例如，如果要设置计划报告以在尝试失败时重试，则可以在 CMC 中指定重试次数和重试间隔.但是，您无法在 InfoSys 中执行此操作，也无法查看信息.InfoSys 允许您设置事件驱动的计划，而 CMC 不支持此功能.
Separate CMC: Why do you have to launch another application just to manage your object security? Worse, why isn't the functionality identical between CMC and InfoSys? For example, if you want to setup a scheduled report to retry on failed attempts, then you can specify the number of retries and the retry interval in CMC. However, you can't do this in InfoSys and you can't see the information either. InfoSys allows you to setup event-driven schedules and CMC does not support this feature.
Java 版本依赖性:BOXI 在最终用户机器上运行良好，只要它们运行与服务器相同的 Java 版本.但是，一旦在您的机器上安装了较新版本的 java，事情就会开始出现问题.我们在 BOXI R2 服务器(默认 Java 客户端)上运行 Java 1.5，公司中几乎每个人都使用 Java 1.6.如果您使用 Java 1.6，则提示可能会冻结您的 IE 和 FoxFire 会话或意外崩溃您的报表生成器.
Java Version Dependency: BOXI works great on end-user machines so long as they are running the same version of java as the server. However, once a newer version of java is installed on your machine, things starts to break. We're running Java 1.5 on our BOXI R2 server (the default java client) and almost everyone in the company is on Java 1.6. If you use Java 1.6, then prompts can freeze your IE and FoxFire sessions or crash your report builder unexpectedly.
弱可发现性:除了 BOB(Business Objects Board)，互联网上关于解决 Business Objects 问题的内容并不多.
Weak Discoverability: Aside from BOB (Business Objects Board), there isn't much out there on the Internet regarding troubleshooting Business Objects problems.
Cognos 系列 8
优点
易用性:虽然 BOXI 更易于用于为一般业务用户编写简单的报告，但 Cognos 在该领域排名第二.
Ease of Use: Although BOXI is easier to use for writing simple reports for general business users, Cognos is a close 2nd in this area.
数据库不可知:与 BOXI 一样，如果您希望使用 Oracle、DB2 或其他数据库后端，这绝对是一个不错的解决方案.
Database Agnostic: Like BOXI this is definitely a good solution if you expect to use Oracle, DB2, or another database back-end.
FrameWork Manager:这绝对是一流的元数据存储库.BOXI 的宇宙建造者希望它有一半好.此工具非常适合在开发、测试和生产环境中推广软件包.
FrameWork Manager: This is definitely a best-in-class meta-data repository. BOXI's universe builder wishes it was half as good. This tool is well suited to promoting packages across Development, Test, and Production environments.
缺点
成本:与 Business Objects 相同的问题.类似的成本结构.也有类似的数据库许可要求.
Cost: Same issue as Business Objects. Similar cost structure. Similar database licensing requirements as well.
无源代码控制:与 Business Objects 相同的问题.我不知道有任何 3rd 方工具可以解决此问题，但它们可能存在.
No Source Control: Same issue as Business Objects. I'm not aware of any 3rd party tools that resolve this issue, but they might exist.
模型偏差:与 Business Objects 相同的问题.不过，对 FrameWork Manager 中的存储过程有更好的支持.
Model Bias: Same issue as Business Objects. Has better support for stored procedures in FrameWork Manager, though.
参数支持不佳:与 Business Objects 相同的问题.如果您可以用 Java 编码，则对创建提示页面有更好的支持.但是，当用户单击后退按钮返回提示页面时，会出现错误行为.SSRS 轻松击败了这一点.
Poor Parameter Support: Same issue as Business Objects. Has better support for creating prompt-pages if you can code in Java. Buggy behavior, though, when users click the back-button to return to the prompt-page. SSRS beats this out hands-down.
错误处理不足:Cognos 中的错误消息几乎无法破译.它们通常会为您提供一个长负数和堆栈转储作为错误消息的一部分.我不知道我们通过从头开始重建报告来解决"这些错误消息多少次.出于某种原因，很容易破坏报告定义.
Inadequate Error Handling: Error messages in Cognos are nearly impossible to decipher. They generally give you a long negative number and a stack dump as part of the error message. I don't know how many times we "resolved" these error messages by rebuilding reports from scratch. For some reason, it is pretty easy to corrupt a report definition.
无法发现:很难找到有关如何解决问题或在 Cognos 中实现功能的任何答案.面向 Internet 的网站上的产品没有足够的社区支持.
No Discoverability: It is very hard to track down any answers on how to troubleshoot problems or to implement functionality in Cognos. There just isn't adequate community support in Internet facing websites for the products.
您可以从我的回答中猜到，我相信 Microsoft 的 BI 套件是市场上最好的平台.但是，我必须指出，我读过的大多数关于 BI 套件比较的文章通常都没有对 Microsoft 的产品以及 SAP 的 Business Objects 和 Cognos 的 Series 8 产品进行评分.此外，我还看到微软在两家独立公司的 BI 套件的内部审查中排名垫底，因为他们被在位的 CIO 审查过.不过，在这两种情况下，似乎都归结为希望被视为一个能够证明庞大运营预算合理的主要部门.
As you can guess from my answer, I believe Microsoft's BI suite is the best platform on the market. However, I must state that most articles I've read on comparisons of BI suites usually do not rate Microsoft's offering as well as SAP's Business Objects and Cognos's Series 8 products. Also, I've also seen Microsoft come out on the bottom in internal reviews of BI Suites in two separate companies after they were review by the reigning CIO's. In both instances, though, it seemed like it all boiled down to wanting to be perceived as a major department that justified a large operating budget.
这篇关于企业报告解决方案的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！