This is regarding anonymous embedding. I have a dataset with RLS set up using 4 tags within a location based hierarchy.
System > Group > Facility > Department
Each level has a one to many relationship with the level below it. Naturally the match all value works well to limit a user within one branch of the location tree. Some users can see all Departments within a number of Facilities - so we pass their Facility ID’s and match all value for Department. The problem is when they need access to a Department that doesn’t belong to the facilities they are granted access to. This issue would cause us to send every Department ID which could easily surpass the value character limit even if we used all 50 available tags.
What’s the total string size when you add all the departments together? And, curious, what’s the cardinality of departments and what’s string size of the department field?
I’m guessing that you’ve already seen this work-around: RLS by pass the limit of 256 per tags
One thought might be to introduce a higher level grouping, so some category that already includes the right departments and facilities. So the hierarchy would look like System → Group → Facility-Department->Category. I don’t know that would work with your data or not, though.
Hey @wstevens01- thanks for the reply. The string size is 5 characters per department. Each root system can have varying numbers of departments with the highest being over 7,000. No distinguishable pattern I’ve seen yet to create a new lower category unfortunately but that’s a great idea.
@Rowen - it’s a tricky little problem and increasing the size of the session tags doesn’t really solve it. They’ll always be a limitation and someone will always run into it.
I’ve been thinking about it all weekend and will keep noodling it; I keep thinking that it’s more of a modeling problem. A few questions to understand it better (if you don’t mind):
- I’m assuming that you have a unique user id that let’s you figure out the system, group, facility, and department hierarchy, true?
- Are these fields just filters for the dashboards or are they included in any of visuals?
- Are there any other filters directly on the dashboard?
We have not heard back from you regarding your question. We would still like to help. If we do not hear back in the next 3 days, we will archive the question.
@wstevens01 @Max I solved the issue by creating additional tags for the high cardinality fields and using OR conditions on the rules. Thanks for your feedback!
Good new, @Rowen! Glad to hear you found a work-around. I’d love to see an example of that session file if you’re comfortable sharing it.