Good day,
I have seen from here a solution to control duplicate entries into a single column. A Data validation with this custom formula works well for one column.
I would like to achieve the same effect over multiple columns ... i.e. unique row entries across multiple columns. Take for example below three columns A-C. Only when values {1,2,1} are entered for the second time will the input be rejected.
A B C
1 1 1
1 2 1
1 2 2
2 2 2
1 2 1 X Entry should be rejected.
Is there a quick way to do this using Data Validation - custom formulae?
use custom formula for data validation:
=INDEX(COUNTIF($A$1:$A&"×"&$B$1:$B&"×"&$C$1:$C, $A1&"×"&$B1&"×"&$C1)<2)
Related
I'm trying to use Vlookup in a Google Sheet using an ID to match 2 separate tables. If there is no match in the first table, then I am telling the code to search for it in the second table. The lookup value, and 2 tables are all in different sheets and it doesnt work but I am able to get another test to work when they are all on the same sheet so I am not sure why that is.
For example this works
arrayformula(IFERROR(if(vlookup(A2:A,D2:E,2,FALSE)<>"",vlookup(A2:A,D2:E,2,FALSE),vlookup(A2:A,G2:H,2,FALSE))))
ID
Vlookup
ID
Vlookup value
ID
Vlookup value
1
One
1
One
1
2
Two
2
2
Two
3
Three
3
Three
3
4
Four
4
4
Four
5
This Full Formula fails
Arrayformula(IFERROR(IF(vlookup($B$2:$B,Sheet1!$A$3:$I,4,FALSE)<>"",vlookup($B$2:$B,Sheet1!$A$3:$I,4,FALSE),vlookup($B$2:$B,'Sheet2'!$A$1:$N,4,FALSE))))
I'm not sure how to moidfy my formula, which works in individual parts and together it matches data in Sheet1! but not on Sheet 2! based on my tests.
Testing Results
Arrayformula(IFERROR(IF(vlookup($B$2:$B,Sheet1!$A$3:$I,4,FALSE) --> Vlookkup matches Sheet1! data also
Arrayformula(vlookup($B$2:$B,'Sheet2'!$A$1:$N,4,FALSE) -->matches Sheet2! data
Modify the second part of the data to "False"
Arrayformula(IFERROR(IF(vlookup($B$2:$B,Sheet1!$A$3:$I,4,FALSE)<>"",vlookup($B$2:$B,Sheet1!$A$3:$I,4,FALSE),"False"))))
Result: Anything that does not match in either Sheet 1 or Sheet 2 says "False". But a match in Sheet 1 works and a match in Sheet 2 shows blank.
Modifying the IF statements to make consistent did not work either
Arrayformula(IFERROR(IF(vlookup($B$2:$B,Sheet1!$A$3:$I,4,FALSE)<>"",vlookup($B$2:$B,Sheet1!$A$3:$I,4,FALSE),
IF(vlookup($B$2:$B,Sheet2!$A$1:$N,4,FALSE)<>"",vlookup($B$2:$B,Sheet2!$A$1:$N,4,FALSE),""))))
How can I modify the formula so that it works in unison?
This works
=arrayformula(IFERROR(if(vlookup(A2:A,Sheet1!A1:B5,2,FALSE)<>"",vlookup(A2:A,Sheet1!A1:B5,2,FALSE),vlookup(A2:A,Sheet2!A1:B5,2,FALSE))))
Still unsure if there is another error in the formula above that didn't work as I think it should have worked
Let me describe the one record structure in pseudo-code:
Record
UserName
E-mail
Items[8]
ItemPropertyA
ItemPropertyB
ItemPropertyC
ItemPropertyD
ItemPropertyE
There are 1-8 items in a record and exactly 5 properties each in each item. So I need to store these many records as (excel) table and I want it to be human readable, if possible. The straitforward approach is to put items and properties in 8 * 5 = 40 columns, but this is difficult to review. I'm going to place a JSON array of properties in each cell (one celll per item), using as many cells in each rows as needed. I'm just curious about other tree-to-table possibilities.
There is an alternative to 40 separate columns (some of which may be unused if there are fewer than 8 items in a record). You can use database style normalized records:
SHEET 1
RecordId UserName Email
1 Bobby bobby#example.com
2 Susan sueb#example.com
SHEET 2
RecordId ItemId PropertyA PropertyB PropertyC PropertyD PropertyE
1 1 Chocolate Electric Round Silver Hebrew
1 2 Raspberry Steam Trapezoid Brass Esperanto
1 3 Durian Gravity Bezier Titanium Bahasa Melayu
2 1 Vanilla Solar Rhombus Copper Pashto
Of course you could normalize even further and have just a single Property column, but the above seems perhaps enough when you know each item has exactly the same five properties.
I looked around for a bit and didn't see any question quite like the one I have. I have a sheet with over 80k values in column A. What I need, is to remove every occurrence of a duplicate. If the value 5 appears more than once, I don't want the value at all. For example, if I have something like this:
A
1
2
2
3
4
3
I ONLY want the values of 1 and 4, because they only appear once. I'd like every other value deleted, or to have only the values like 1 and 4 appear in another column.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Work on a copy as the following deletes records from source data. In B1 (adjust 90000 to suit):
=COUNTIF(A$1:A$90000;A1)>1
and copy down to suit. Filter A:B, select 1 for ColumnB and delete the selected rows. Change filter to select All.
My development team is working with OBIEE 11G to make an analysis as follows:
Discover which policyholders are in alert. An alert is defined as this: when the quantity of claims of a policyholder is superior to a certain threshold. If the policyholder has at least one alert in one of its claims, then the policyholder is in alert. The problem is that those thresholds are defined to a particular key (combination of type of client, range of age, type of pathology and other stuff) and a policyholder can have many keys and a threshold for each key, so the quantity of claims varies. Something like this:
Policyholder Key #Claims Threshold
ABC123 XYZ 3 4
WQE 3 2
EFG456 ABC 1 2
The ABC123 policyholder has 6 claims in total, 3 for the key XYZ (which has a threshold of 4) and 3 for the key WQE (which has a threshold of 2). On the other hand, the EFG456 policyholder has 1 claim for the key ABC that has a threshold of 2. So in this case, ABC123 policyholder should be in alert because the quantity of claims for the key WQE is greater than the threshold.
So, in OBIEE 11G my team added two columns, one to mark the records in alert and one to mark the records which are not in alert. Like this:
Policyholder Key #Claims Threshold Alert notAlert
ABC123 XYZ 3 4 0 1
WQE 3 2 1 0
EFG456 ABC 1 2 0 1
You see the problem now? OBIEE 11G does not see policyholder ABC123 as a unit and mark it both as in alert and not in alert, which is wrong. The correct info should be:
Policyholder Key #Claims Threshold Alert notAlert
ABC123 XYZ 3 4 0 0
WQE 3 2 1 0
EFG456 ABC 1 2 0 1
Because, it doesn't matter if the policyholder did not reach the alert for key XYZ. If an alert is discovered, the complete file of the policyholder is examined to resolve the alert.
Is there anyway of telling this to OBIEE 11G???
Please help!!
I think this is a dimensional modeling problem instead of an OBIEE one:
In order to help I will make a few assumptions:
PolicyHolder and Key are separate dimensions:
Although the "key" dimension contains some attributes from the policyholder,
such as type of client and age group; it also combines other entities like pathology and to me
that is enough to consider it at least a mini dimension.
The "Is in alert flag" can be modeled as a factless fact table:
It looks like you only need to know if a particular policyholder is in alert,
there is no metric associated with the event and you only need a flag that is either 0 or 1. This can be solved with a simple table that includes at least 3 columns: FK_POLICYHOLDER,FK_DATE and the flag. You already have a flag but it is included in the claims table as a calculated column, if you model this flag as a separate table you will have control of the dimensionality and granularity of the alert. See What dw model is appropriate when there's no measure?.
The metric "number of claims" has a different dimensionality than the alert flag.
I think the crux of the problem is that flags are calculated at the key level but for reporting purposes are only needed at the Policyholder level.
If you want alerts to be assigned to a PolicyHolder "as a unit" then you need a fact table that is linked to the PolicyHolder dimension and NOT LINKED to the key dimension
Concretely:
Create a separate dimension table for your "Key" entity (type of client, pathology, etc.)
Create a new factless fact table that contains alerts for a policyholder, this table should not link to the Key dimension.
Change the "Alert" column in your report, you should get that value from the flag counter of your new factless fact table.
Firstly, the ALERT columns seem redundant. It's an incredibly simple calculation that would be better done by OBI dynamically. That way you can check for policy holders in alert (on the aggregate of their keys) or for each key.
If I wanted to fix that calculation in OBI I would do it with a calculated logical column in the BMM (based on other logical columns) simply evaluating CLAIMS against THRESHOLD:
CASE WHEN CLAIMS >= THRESHOLD THEN 1 ELSE 0 END
That way the flag can work at multiple levels (either for POLICYHOLDER or KEY). But it seems a very simple calculation that could just be done in the Analysis as a filter (or selection step).
Even simpler though (assuming you have CLAIMS and THRESHOLD as measure columns with a SUM aggregation, and POLICYHOLDER and KEY as dimension column) would be to ignore any sort of alert column altogether. If you don't bring KEY into the Analysis OBI would give you each policy holder, their total claims and total threshold. You could then use selection steps or a filter in the criteria to remove those not over the threshold.
I am new to informatica power center tool and performing some assignment.
I have input data in a flat file.
data.csv contains
A,2
B,3
C,2
D,1
And Required output will be
output.csv should be like
A
A
B
B
B
C
C
D
Means I need to create output rows depending upon value in column. I tried it using java transformation and I got the result.
Is there any other way to do it.
Please help.
Java transformation is a very good approach, but if you insist on an alternative implementation, you can use a helper table and a Joiner transformation.
Create a helper table and populate it with appropriate amount of rows (you need to know the maximum value that may appear in the input file).
There is one row with COUNTER=1, two rows with COUNTER=2, three rows with COUNTER=3, etc.
Use a Joiner transformation to join data from the input file and the helper table - since the latter contains multiple rows for a single COUNTER value, the input rows will be multiplied.
COUNTER
-------------
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
(...)
Depending on your RDBMS, you may be able to produce the contents of the helper table using a SQL query in a source qualifier.