I did not hide the entire rows. I hid just the duplicated values in one column and I need to sum that same column, excluding the hidden values. Thank you very much.
The field having duplicated values that I wanted to hide is SpaceArea This is how I hid the duplicated values from rows on the SpaceArea column:
=IIF(Fields!SpaceID.Value = Previous(Fields!SpaceID.Value),True, False)
Then I need to SUM all the SpaceArea excluding the hidden values.
Once I tried to use the same Show/Hide logic to the Sum expression as per another post of yours, I got an error message. This is what I tried:
=Sum(IIF(Fields!SpaceID.Value = Previous(Fields!SpaceID.Value), Nothing, Fields!SpaceArea.Value))
==> then I got this error message:
previous functions cannot be specified as nested aggregates.
You can use row_number() in your SQL to highlight the duplicates.
row_number() over (partition by SpaceID order by (select null)) as [RowNumber]
This will give you an arbitrary numbering to the duplicate rows.
Then in SSRS you can use..
sum(iif(Fields!RowNumber.Value = 1, Fields!SpaceArea.Value, Nothing)) to only sum the first instance of each duplicate.
Related
I have question about "Subquery in Order by clause". The below request returns the error. Is it means that Subquery in Order by clause must be scalar?
select *
from employees
order by (select * from employees where first_name ='Steven' and last_name='King');
Error:
ORA-00913: too many values
00913. 00000 - "too many values"
Yes, it means that if you use a subquery in ORDER BY it must be scalar.
With select * your subquery returns multiple columns and the DBMS would not know which of these to use for the sorting. And if you selected one column only, you would still have to make sure you only select one row of course. (The difference is that Oracle sees the too-many-columns problem immediately, but detect too many rows only when fetching the data.)
This would be allowed:
select * from employees
order by (select birthdate from employees where employee_id = 12345);
This is a scalar query, because it returns only one value (one column, one row). But of course this still makes as little sense as your original query, because the subquery result is independent from the main query, i.e. it returns the same value for every row in the table and thus no sorting takes effect.
A last remark: A subquery in ORDER BY makes very seldomly sense, because that would mean you order by something you don't display. The exception is when looking up a sortkey. E.g.:
select *
from products p
where type = 'shirt' and color = 'blue' and size in ('S', 'M', 'L', 'XL')
order by (select sortkey from sizes s where s.size = p.size);
It means that valid options for ORDER BY clause can be
expression,
position or
column alias
A subquery is neither of these.
I have set up two tabs on the on Google Sheets document. In Tab1 I have ColumnA (days of the week) and ColumnB (employees). I have created Named Ranges for both of these. In Tab2, I want to find all the employees from ColumnB that match the value 'Monday' within Tab1 ColumnA and return the value of ColumnB of the same row. Ideally, I would like all matching values to be listed in the one cell.
I have gotten as far as
=IF('Tab1'!A:A="Monday","value(Tab1'!B:B)","")
Which is returning the false/blank value correctly.
When the value 'Monday' from Tab1 actually does match, it returns #VALUE! and not the actual value from ColumnB. I think this is because I'm not specifying that it's a text value, not a number, but I'm not certain how to do so. Lastly, the values returns, including the blank ones, are on individual rows corresponding to where they are on Tab1 which again, I'm not sure how to correct.
Find the sheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TzFCz15-B0XAVkc2j4aQPx6yjTGmzguTqdxLKsQ65Y8/edit?usp=sharing
If anyone can guide me to the solution I would be very grateful.
paste in A2 cell and drag to the right:
=IFERROR(FILTER('Task Status'!$E3:$E, 'Task Status'!$H3:$H=A$1))
I have table[Table 1] having three columns
OrganizationName, FieldName, Acres having data as follows
organizationname fieldname Acres
ABC |F1 |0.96
ABC |F1 |0.96
ABC |F1 |0.64
I want to calculate the sum of Distinct values of Acres
(eg: 0.96+0.64) in DAX.
One of the problems with doing what you want is that many measures rely on filters and not actual table expressions. So, getting a distinct list of values and then filtering the table by those values, just gives you the whole table back.
The iterator functions are handy and operate on table expressions, so try SUMX
TotalDistinctAcreage = SUMX(DISTINCT(Table1[Acres]),[Acres])
This will generate a table that is one column containing only the distinct values for Acres, and then add them up. Note that this is only looking at the Acres column, so if different fields and organizations had the same acreage -- then that acreage would still only be counted once in this sum.
If instead you want to add up the acreage simply on distinct rows, then just make a small change:
TotalAcreageOnDistinctRows = SUMX(DISTINCT(Table1),[Acres])
Hope it helps.
Ok, you added these requirements:
Thank You. :) However, I want to add Distinct values of Acres for a
Particular Fieldname. Is this possible? – Pooja 3 hours ago
The easiest way really is just to go ahead and slice or filter the original measure that I gave you. But if you have to apply the filter context in DAX, you can do it like this:
Measure =
SUMX(
FILTER(
SUMMARIZE( Table1, [FieldName], [Value] )
, [FieldName] = "<put the name of your specific field here"
)
, [Value]
)
I'm developing an application that uses a tabular database to show some business data.
I need to provide some basic filtering over measures values (equal to, greater than, lesser than etc.) and I'm currently analyzing the proper way to generate the MDX.
Looking at some documentation (and other threads on this site), I found that the most efficient approach would be using the FILTER or HAVING functions to filter out undesired values.
Unfortunately all examples normally include measures on one axis and dimension member on the other, but I potentially have dimension members in both axis and can't find a proper solution to use such functions to filter by measure value.
What have I done so far?
To make it easier to explain, let's say that we want to get the yearly sales quantities by product class filtering quantity > 1.3 milions
Trying to use HAVING or FILTER Functions, the resulting MDX I came up with is
SELECT
NON EMPTY {[YearList].[Year].[Year].MEMBERS * [Measures].[Qty]}
HAVING [Measures].[Qty] > 1.3e6 ON COLUMNS,
NON EMPTY {[Classes].[cClass].[cClass].MEMBERS}
HAVING [Measures].[Qty] > 1.3e6 ON ROWS
FROM [Model]
or
SELECT
NON EMPTY FILTER({[YearList].[Year].[Year].MEMBERS * [Measures].[Qty]},
[Measures].[Qty] > 1.3e6) ON COLUMNS,
NON EMPTY FILTER({[Classes].[cClass].[cClass].MEMBERS} ,
[Measures].[Qty] > 1.3e6) ON ROWS
FROM [Model]
But this is of course leading to unexpected result for the final user because the filter is happening on the aggregation of the quantities by the dimension on that axis only, which is greater then 1.3M
The only way I found so far to achieve what I need is to define a custom member with an IIF statement
WITH
MEMBER [Measures].[FilteredQty] AS
IIF ( [Measures].[Qty] > 1.3e6, [Measures].[Qty], NULL)
SELECT
NON EMPTY {[YearList].[Year].[Year].MEMBERS * [Measures].[FilteredQty]} ON COLUMNS,
NON EMPTY {[Classes].[cClass].[cClass].MEMBERS} ON ROWS
FROM [Model]
The result is the one expected:
Is this the best approach or I should keep using FILTER and HAVING functions? Is there even a better approach I'm still missing?
Thanks
This is the best approach. You need to consider how MDX resolves result. In the example above it is a coincidence that your valid data in a continous region of first four columns of first row. Lets relax the filtering clause and make it >365000. Now take a look at last row of the result, the first two columns and the last column are eligible cells but the third and fourth column is not eligible. However your query will report it as null and the non empty function will not help. The reason is that non empty needs the entire row to be null
Now the question that why filter is not eliminating the cell? Filter will eliminate a row or column when the criteria is greater then the sum on the other axis. So if filter is on columns the filter value has to be greater than the sum of rows for that column. Take a look at the sample below as soon as you remove the comments the last column will be removed.
select
non empty
filter(
([Measures].[Internet Sales Amount]
,{[Date].[Calendar Year].&[2013],[Date].[Calendar Year].&[2014]}
,[Date].[Calendar Quarter of Year].[Calendar Quarter of Year]
),([Date].[Calendar Year].currentmember,[Date].[Calendar Quarter of Year].currentmember,[Product].[Subcategory].currentmember,[Measures].[Internet Sales Amount])>45694.70--+0.05
)
on columns
,
non empty
[Product].[Subcategory].members
on rows
from
[Adventure Works]
Edit another sample added.
with
member [Measures].[Internet Sales AmountTest]
as
iif(([Date].[Calendar Year].currentmember,[Date].[Calendar Quarter of Year].currentmember,[Product].[Subcategory].currentmember,[Measures].[Internet Sales Amount])>9000,
([Date].[Calendar Year].currentmember,[Date].[Calendar Quarter of Year].currentmember,[Product].[Subcategory].currentmember,[Measures].[Internet Sales Amount]),
null
)
select
non empty
({[Measures].[Internet Sales Amount],[Measures].[Internet Sales AmountTest]}
,{[Date].[Calendar Year].&[2013]}
,[Date].[Calendar Quarter of Year].[Calendar Quarter of Year]
)
on columns
,
non empty
[Product].[Subcategory].[Subcategory]
on rows
from
[Adventure Works]
I am selecting a table that has multiple of the same records (same REQUEST_ID) with different VERSION_NO. So I want to sort it descending so I can take the highest number (latest record).
This is what I have...
IF it_temp2[] IS NOT INITIAL.
SELECT request_id
version_no
status
item_list_id
mod_timestamp
FROM ptreq_header INTO TABLE it_abs3
FOR ALL ENTRIES IN it_temp2
WHERE item_list_id EQ it_temp2-itemid.
ENDIF.
So version_no is one of the SELECT field but I want to sort that field (descending) and only take the first row.
I was doing some research and read that SORT * BY * won't work with FOR ALL ENTRIES. But that's just my understanding from reading up.
Please let me know how I can make this work. Thanks
You can simply sort the itab after the select and delete all adjecent duplicates afterwards, if wanted:
SORT it_abs3 BY request_id [ASCENDING] version_no DESCENDING.
DELETE ADJACENT DUPLICATES FROM it_abs3 COMPARE request_id.
Depending on the amount of expected garbage (to be deleted lines) in the itab an SQL approach is better. See Used_By_Already's answer.
If you are using the term "latest" to indicate "the most recent entry", then the field mod_timestamp appears to be relevant and you could use it this way to choose only the most recent records for each request_id.
SELECT
request_id
, version_no
, status
, item_list_id
, mod_timestamp
FROM ptreq_header h
INNER JOIN (
SELECT
request_id
, MAX(mod_timestamp) AS latest
FROM ptreq_header
GROUP BY
request_id
) l
ON h.request_id = l.request_id
AND h.mod_timestamp = l.latest
If you want the largest version_no, then instead of MAX(mod_timestamp) use MAX(version_no)
Just declare the it_abs3 as a sorted table with key that would consist of the columns you want to sort by.
You can also sort the table after the query.
SORT it_abs3 BY ...