I am trying to replace 3 values in one column, but I would like to do it in one step instead of three steps. I don't want to have Replaced Value1, Replaces Value2 and Replaced Value 3.
Imagine you have in column Cars only these values: Volkswagen, Renault and Dacia. You want to replace them like:
Volkswagen --> VW
Renault --> RN
Dacia --> DC
Is it possible to do it in one step instead of 3? I am trying to use statement Table.ReplaceValue
Many thanks
One of the methods is creating RenameCars table like this:
After adding this table to PQ you may use following formula:
= Table.TransformColumns(YourTable, {"Cars", each
try RenameCars{[Name = _]}[Name_mod] otherwise _})
Another way (if your list of replacements is quite short) is using Record.FieldOrDefault function. In this case supporting table is not needed.
= Table.TransformColumns(YourTable, {"Cars", each
Record.FieldOrDefault([Volkswagen = "VW", Renault = "RN", Dacia = "DC"],_,_)})
Similar to #Aleksei's answer, you can use the Table.ReplaceValue function instead if you prefer:
= Table.ReplaceValue(YourTable, each [Car], each RenameCars{[Name = [Car]]}[Name_mod], Replacer.ReplaceText, {"Car"})
This assumes you have the RenameCars table as well.
Related
I have two facts tables, First and Second, and two dimension tables, dimTime and dimColour.
Fact table First looks like this:
and facet table Second looks like this:
Both dim-tables have 1:* relationships to both fact tables and the filtering is one-directional (from dim to fact), like this:
dimColour[Color] 1 -> * First[Colour]
dimColour[Color] 1 -> * Second[Colour]
dimTime[Time] 1 -> * First[Time]
dimTime[Time] 1 -> * Second[Time_]
Adding the following measure, I would expect the FILTER-functuion not to have any affect on the calculation, since Second does not filter First, right?
Test_Alone =
CALCULATE (
SUM ( First[Amount] );
First[Alone] = "Y";
FILTER(
'Second';
'Second'[Colour]="Red"
)
)
So this should evaluate to 7, since only two rows in First have [Alone] = "Y" with values 1 and 6 and that there is no direct relationship between First and Second. However, this evaluates to 6. If I remove the FILTER-function argument in the calculate, it evaluates to 7.
There are thre additional measures in the pbix-file attached which show the same type of behaviour.
How is filtering one fact table which has no direct relationship to a second fact table affecting the calculation done on the second table?
Ziped Power BI-file: PowerBIFileDownload
Evaluating the table reference 'Second' produces a table that includes the columns in both the Second table, as well as those in all the (transitive) parents of the Second table.
In this case, this is a table with all of the columns in dimColour, dimTime, Second.
You can't see this if you just run:
evaluate 'Second'
as when 'evaluate' returns the results to the user, these "Parent Table" (or "Related") columns are not included.
Even so, these columns are certainly present.
When a table is converted to a row context, these related columns become available via RELATED.
See the following queries:
evaluate FILTER('Second', ISBLANK(RELATED(dimColour[Color])))
evaluate 'Second' order by RELATED(dimTime[Hour])
Similarly, when arguments to CALCULATE are used to update the filter context, these hidden "Related" columns are not ignored; hence, they can end up filtering First, in your example. You can see this, by using a function that strips the related columns, such as INTERSECT:
Test_ActuallyAlone = CALCULATE (
SUM ( First[Amount] ),
First[Alone] = "Y",
//This filter now does nothing, as none of the columns in Second
//have an impact on 'SUM ( First[Amount] )'; and the related columns
//are removed by the INTERSECT.
FILTER(
INTERSECT('Second', 'Second')
'Second'[Colour]="Red"
)
)
(See these resources that describe the "Expanded Table"
(this is an alternative but equivalent explanation of this behaviour)
https://www.sqlbi.com/articles/expanded-tables-in-dax/
https://www.sqlbi.com/articles/context-transition-and-expanded-tables/
)
Use first two digits of Column to give a name to a new column.
I have a list of companies and their NAICS ID. I would like to filter these into a pie chart but I don't want the 90000 different names (just the general ex. Agriculture or Mining). I want to utilize the first two digits in for the column to identify its general name. I am trying to use the DAX expression Switch to get this started. Is there a filter to do this within PowerBI?
I haven't started yet since I am not sure if this is possible.
You could simply create a calculated column based off of the original NAICS code using the following:
FirstTwoDigitsOfNAICS :=
SWITCH (
TRUE (),
LEFT ( 'Table'[NAICSCode] ) = x, "Something",
LEFT ( 'Table'[NAICSCode] ) = y, "Something Else"
)
This DAX will simply pull the first two characters from the entire code.
Input:
TABLE NAME: SEARCH_RECORD
Column A Column B Column C Column D
ID CODE WORD CODE/WORD
--------------------------------------------
123 666Ani RAT 666Ani/RAT
124 777Cae CAT 777Cae/CAT
I need a query to check as a LIKE case
if i search with column B like '%6A' or column C '%A%' it will give result
suppose i want to get the like based on the column D search
**User will search like '%6A%'/'%AT%' (always / will be given by user)**
Expected output:
666Ani/RAT
so, I need a query for the above to get the ID as output (CASE query is preferable)
Need you valuable suggestion
.
It can't be done with simple like.
It should work if the pattern look like '%6A%/%AT%'. It is a valid pattern.
So, you can write: columnD like '%6A%/%AT%' or columnD like first_pattern||'/'||second_pattern if the come from as different variables.
Another approach, if you know for sure that there is only a /(you can check how many they are), may be to use two likes using substr to get first and then second part of the search string.
where
columnB like substr(match_string, 1, instr(match_string,'/'))
and
columnC like substr(match_string, instr(match_string,'/')+1)
I want to loop thru a dbf and create word table for each record meeting the condition, and I got a one-page report with only the last rec in a single table. Look like all records are written to the same table. I tried to use n = n + 1 to place the variable as an element to the table
oTable = oDoc.tables[n]
But seems it only support numerical rather than variable ?
You have to add each table as you go, making sure to leave space in between them (because Word likes to combine tables).
You'll need something like this inside your loop:
* Assumes you start with oDoc pointing to the document,
* oRange set to an empty range at the beginning of the area where you want to add the tables,
* and that nRows and nCols give you the size of the table.
oTable = oDoc.Tables.Add(m.oRange, m.nRows, m.nCols)
oRange = oTable.Range()
oRange.Collapse(0)
oRange.InsertParagraphAfter()
oRange.Collapse(0)
After this code, you can use oTable to add the data you want to add. Then, on the next time through the loop, you're ready to add another table below the one you just filled.
I can't work out if this is possible or not, I've got a basic table but that table has a varying number of rows and data within it.
Assuming the table is just one column wide and a random number of rows long to select a row containing the text "COW" I can do something very simple like do: -
table/tbody/tr[contains(td[1],"COW")]/td[1]
But lets say that this table contains two types of data in it, a list of animals and, underneath each animal, a list of attributes, all in the same column, looking something like this: -
COW
Horns = 2
Hooves = 4
Tail = 1
CHICKEN
Horns = 0
Hooves = 0
Tail = 1
Is there a way using XPATH to first identify the row that contains the text COW and then select the row directly after this to return the text "Horns = 2"?
Cheers
It seems that you want something like this:
table/tbody/tr[contains(td[1],"COW")]/following-sibling::tr[1]/td[1]
This will select the first td in the row immediately following the row which contains the td which contains COW.