Is there a way to drill down based on parent-child relationship in AWS QuickSight? For example revenue of restaurants where the restaurants are in group hierarchy and we want to show the sum of revenue on specific level of hierarchy. The group levels are dynamic and based on parent-child structure.
Here is how we render the groups in web app:
Group data is in table with columns group_id, group_name, group_parent_id.
You could do this when you create the visual by adding a drill-down layer in the field well. See the link here - https://github.com/awsdocs/amazon-quicksight-user-guide/blob/master/doc_source/adding-drill-downs.md
An alternative approach is using actions and parameters. By passing the field that establishes the join between the parent and the child, using a parameter, you could achieve that drill down. It is a more elegant method than the previous URL only approach. It is explained quite well in this workshop : AWS Quicksight - Adding Interactivity
Related
What I would like to get is the average ScoreOverall of all the products within the List. I've tried adding some relationships but I can't get an aggregate "endpoint" on a nested level.
The data model:
List
|--ListProducts (linking table, one list to many products)
|--ProductScore (joined view)
|--ScoreWeighted (value I want the average across all products in this List)
Any clues on what the best approach for this would be?
If the built in GQL operations exposed by Hasura don't allow you to get everything you need your best bet is extending the schema with a custom SQL function or view
Good morning! What would be the best way to filter an analysis off of an Essbase subject area based on the value of a prompted presentation variable? For example, if the user selects the "Widgets" parent entity it would display its direct children as rows in a table view. There would be 6 or so different choices that would all have different children. Would a CASE statement work?
I have two scenarios that I want to support but I don’t know the best way to design relations in the elasticsearch. I read the entire elasticsearch documentation but I couldn’t find the best way to design types for my scenarios.
Multiple one to many.
Let’s assume that I have the following tables in my relational database that I want to transfer to the elasticsearch:
Transaction table Id User1Id User2Id ….
User table Id Name
Transaction contains two references to User. As far as I know I cannot use the parent->child relation specifying two parents? I need to store transaction and user in separate types because they can be changed separately. I need to be able to search transaction through user details and return users connected with transactions. Any idea how to design such structure in the elastic search?
Many to many
Let’s assume that we have the following tables:
Order Id …
OrderLine OrderId UserId Amount …
User Id Name
Order line is always saved with the order so I thought that I can store order with order lines as a nested object relation but the user must be in the separate table. Is there any way how can I connected multiple users from order line with user type? I assume that I can use application side join but I need to retrieve order and order line always together and be able to search order by user data.
I can use grandparent and grandchildren relations but then I need to make joins in the application. Any idea how to design it in the best way?
Let's say we have two index types: members and restaurants. Both contain city attribute.
I want to filter members (e.g. by name) and would like to include list of restaurant names from the members' hometown/city in the results.
Is it possible to do this using just one ES query? I guess it should be similar to DB join.
Thanks.
ES doesn't have the concepts of joins. This is due to it being an index rather than a relational database. Your best best to make two calls. One to get the member's documents, then another to get the restaurants.
Unless you have odd circumstances, this should still be very efficient.
I am trying to create a report which groups on a column called "Legal Entity." When the output is directed to Excel, a separate tab will be created for each distinct entity in the query resultset.
For each Excel tab/Legal Entity, there will be two "sections." The first is a repeating section that breaks on a column "Funding Arrangement Type." After all of the Funding Arrangement Types are exhausted, there will be a single "Totals" grid which will summarize the data on the tab for the current Legal Entity. The data will be summarized across all Funding Arrangement Types within the current Legal Entity.
Because the Totals (lower) grid is really just a summarization of the same source query, Query1, I thought that I would also bind the Totals grid to it. However, if I do that, I get a run time error that tells me that I need to establish a Master-Detail relationship (If I decide to use a separate query for the Totals grid, the Totals grid "will not be aware" of the current Legal Entity/tab that must be considered when summarizing.)
Therefore, I continued with my guess at how the Master-Detail relationship should be defined. I made various attempts to link the two grids, including:
On all of the dimension (non-summarized) columns.
On Legal Entity
On Legal Entity and Funding Arrangement Type
Doing so affected previously correct totals reported in the upper cross tab results/
This Master-Detail approach is foreign and as a result I don't understand what it is doing.
I also tried to use a separate query, Query2, for the lower totals grid and adding a filter to filter SQL2 where SQL2. LegalEntity = SQL1.LegalEntity in an effort to get the totals grid to summarize within the current LeglEntity grouping. This resulted in a cross join error.
I’m a real noob with Cognos. Suggestions are welcomed. Thank you!
You can use mouse+scroll wheel to zoom in:
I was able to get it working by binding both grids to a single query and for both grids, establish a Master-Detail Replationship on Legal Entity. Prior to doing that, I added these columns to both grids and hide them, not sure if this was necessary.