I used "Union" to combine two different subject area in an analysis in OBIEE 11 :
"A" is a column in the first subject area with formula that needs
"A_Dim" to be calculated using "A_Dim" and Case-When (So I Should Use "A_Dim" in first subject area then exclude it in result)
"A" equals to zero in second subject area
"B" is a column in the second subject area
"B" equals to zero in first subject area
"C" is a column in Result (Using Add Result Column) that has this formula :
SUM("A" BY sth ) / SUM("B" BY sth)
("A","B",... replaced with saw_i in result column formula as you know)
the problem is, I can not get top 10 rows ordering by "C" ??
(I tried using RANK, TOPN , TOPN(RANK()),... with no luck)
(and one more thing, there are two problem with using "Narrative view" instead of other views , first they want a bar chart, besides in narrative there is no Exclude option and I should use javaScript to get top 10 from thousands of repeated "C" values)
The original question is old, but I figured I would add my solution in case anyone ends up here like I did.
I was able to create a "Result Column" with my TOPN formula. I did not have to create equivalent columns in the two queries that are being unioned (aka there are 4 columns in each union query but 5 columns in the "Result Columns" overall). It seems to work as expected.
Related
If I have a list of names in a sheet for example:
First Name|Last Name|Something else|
Maria|Miller|...|
John|Doe|...|
Maria|Smith|...|
Marc|Meier|...|
Marc|Park|...|
Maria|Muster|...|
Selene|Mills|...|
Adam|Broker|...|
And then I want a second sheet which then shows the list of non-unique first names and their count, and the list being in descending order. So in this example that would be:
First Name|Count
Maria|3
Marc|2
What I found was this example https://infoinspired.com/google-docs/spreadsheet/sort-by-number-of-occurrences-in-google-sheets/
which sorts of partitions the sheet entries by occurrence.
So as of now I have
=UNIQUE(sort(
Names!C3:Names!C12000;
if(len(Names!C3:Names!C12000);countif(Names!C3:Names!C12000;Names!C3:Names!C12000););
0;
2;
1
))
In the first column and
=IF(ISBLANK(A2);;COUNTIF(Names!C3:Names!C12000; A2))
In the second. This does the job somewhat (it still shows the names with count 1), but the second column needs a copying of each cell downwards for each new entry leftwards. Is there a way to tie this up directly in one line? While filtering out the unique occurrences at that.
(Also the formulas are quite slow. The names sheet has about 11k entries so far. These formulas make the sheet crash at times atm. So I kind of want to sorts of comment out the formulas most of the time and only display them by commenting out the formulas. So the second column also just being one formula would be very helpful.)
use:
=QUERY(SORT(QUERY(A2:A, "select A,count(A) group by A"), 2, ), "where Col2>1", )
I think this should work if your headers are in row 1.
=QUERY(QUERY(Sheet1!A:A,"select Col1,COUNT(Col1) where Col1<>'' group by Col1",1),"where Col2>1 label Col2'Count'",1)
Within PQ, I have a table of data (below) to which I am trying to determine whether all the columns titled Plan Status-# are the same, excluding blanks, and if all the same, display that value and if not display "Varies across plans"
The PQ code is below where I use List.Distinct to create a list of all "unique values".
I then use List.Count to count this number in the list and if 1, set the column equal to the Distinct value.
If List.Count({List.Distinct({[#"Plan Status-H"],[#"Plan Status-D"],[#"Plan Status-S"],[#"Plan Status-M"],[#"Plan Status-C"],[#"Plan Status-U"]})})=1 then List.Distinct({[#"Plan Status-H"],[#"Plan Status-D"],[#"Plan Status-S"],[#"Plan Status-M"],[#"Plan Status-C"],[#"Plan Status-U"]}) else "Varies across plans"
As per the table above, the List.Count does not seem to working correctly as some of the records show a merged value of items in the list which means the List.Count for a list with multiple values is calcing as 1.
You have extra brackets in your code. Try this:
if List.Count(List.Distinct({[#"Plan Status-H"],[#"Plan Status-D"],[#"Plan Status-S"],[#"Plan Status-M"],[#"Plan Status-C"],[#"Plan Status-U"]}))=1
then List.Distinct({[#"Plan Status-H"],[#"Plan Status-D"],[#"Plan Status-S"],[#"Plan Status-M"],[#"Plan Status-C"],[#"Plan Status-U"]})
else "Varies across plans"
I've been working on a spreadsheet with over 100 rows, and found a hacky way to incorporate a "hide" checkbox that will hide any row where column C matches a specific value (building type), specified beside the box. To do this, I first created a function like this: =FILTER(Data!A1, OR(Data!$C1<>$O$2, $P$2)) and dragged that across every row and column in a seperate sheet. This reads as, "Display current cell if the corresponding column C in that row in Data does not match the building type, or if the the checkbox is checked. This way, the whole row is hidden when the building type matches, and the box is unchecked. A1 adjusted to each row individually, $C1 referenced the building's type, $O$2 referenced the targeted type to potentially hide, and $P$2 was the checkbox.
Problem #1: This created a lot of formulas in hundreds of cells, and when the building type was not found, it displayed #N/A across the entire row. A Filter View was able to hide these values, but it was inconvenient to have to reset the values every time I wanted to hide or unhide another building type.
My Attempt to Fix: I used a filter function once again to recreate the entire sheet from one cell, hiding the appropriate rows, using this: =FILTER(Data!A2:J191, ARRAYFORMULA((Data!$C2:C191<>$O$2)+(Data!D2:D191*$P$2)) This is the hacky part. I multiplied the checkbox's "true" by an array arbitrary positive numerical values in the D column to "OR" it with each building type value to achieve the same goal as before, but for EVERY cell.
Problem #2 arose: When I get my beautiful sheet, I can not sort it via a filter view, or it will throw an error and display nothing. I'm resorting to sorting the original tab, but intend to have it be ignored entirely. So how do I combine these two, Filter View, and Filter Function, to create a nice spreadsheet where I can SORT AND HIDE rows?
Bonus Problem #3: To add more buttons, my formula is this: =FILTER(Data!A1:J191, ARRAYFORMULA((Data!$C1:C191<>$O$2)+(Data!D2:D192*$P$2)), ARRAYFORMULA((Data!$C1:C191<>$O$3)+(Data!D2:D192*$P$3)), ARRAYFORMULA((Data!$C1:C191<>$O$4)+(Data!D2:D192*$P$4)), ARRAYFORMULA((Data!$C1:C191<>$O$5)+(Data!D2:D192*$P$5)), ARRAYFORMULA((Data!$C1:C191<>$O$6)+(Data!D2:D192*$P$6)), ARRAYFORMULA((Data!$C1:C191<>$O$7)+(Data!D2:D192*$P$7)), ARRAYFORMULA((Data!$C1:C191<>$O$8)+(Data!D2:D192*$P$8)), ARRAYFORMULA((Data!$C1:C191<>$O$9)+(Data!D2:D192*$P$9))) This is ugly, and very slow to load. Is there a way to create a function range to handle the same checks on multiple rows, and crunch it into a single formula?
Here is another monstrosity (this one has less repetition) for you:
=QUERY(
{IGNORE!A2:J, IGNORE!P2:P},
"SELECT * "
& "WHERE Col3 is not null "
& IF(COUNTIF(P2:P9, False) = 0, "", "AND NOT Col3 MATCHES '^" & JOIN("$|^", IFNA(FILTER(O2:O9, P2:P9 = False))) & "$' ")
& IF(COUNTIF(A2:K2, ">0") = 0, "", "ORDER BY Col" & JOIN(", Col", IFNA(FILTER(COLUMN(A2:K2) & IF(COLUMN(A2:K2) = 1, "", " DESC"), A2:K2)))),
0
)
Your checkboxes should remain. The second row can have just True/False values, no need for column number (a simple change will be needed COUNTIF(A2:K2, ">0") -> COUNTIF(A2:K2, True)). Also consequent sort works now (but only in the actual order of columns: if checked 1, 3, 4 then it will be sorted first by 1, then by 2, then by 4). You could place another config table on the right about sorting, where you would select all the columns you wish to sort by, their mutual order, and desc/asc for them.
Edit: added IFNA so FILTER won't return an error, changed multiple ANDS to MATCHES and simple regexes.
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.