I have 2 columns - Matches(Integer), Accounts_type(String). And i want to create a third column where i want to get proportions of matches played by different account types. I am new to Talend & am facing issue with this for past 2 days & did a lot of research but to no avail. Please help..
You can do it like this:
You need to read your source data twice (I used tFixedFlowInput_1 and tFixedFlowInput_2 with the same data). The idea is to calculate the total of your matches in tAggregateRow_1, it simply does a sum of all Matches without a group by column, then use that as a lookup.
The tMap then joins your source data with the calculated total. Since the total will always be one record, you don't need any join column. You then simply divide Matches by Total as required.
This is supposing you have unique values in Account_type; if you don't, you need to add another tAggregateRow between your source and tMap_1, in order to get sum of Matches for each Account_type (group by Account_type).
We are trying to implement a dashboard that displays various tables, metrics and a map where the dataset is a list of customers. The primary filter condition is the disjunction of two numeric fields. We want to the user to be able to select a threshold for [field 1] and a separate threshold for [field 2] and then impose the condition [field 1] >= <threshold> OR [field 2] >= <threshold>.
After that, we want to also allow various other interactive slicers so the user can restrict the data further, e.g. by country or account manager.
Power BI naturally imposes AND between all filters and doesn't have a neat way to specify OR. Can you suggest a way to define a calculation using the two numeric fields that is then applied as a filter within the same interactive dashboard screen? Alternatively, is there a way to first prompt the user for the two threshold values before the dashboard is displayed -- so when they click Submit on that parameter-setting screen they are then taken to the main dashboard screen with the disjunction already applied?
Added in response to a comment:
The data can be quite simple: no complexity there. The complexity is in getting the user interface to enable a disjunction.
Suppose the data was a list of customers with customer id, country, gender, total value of transactions in the last 12 months, and number of purchases in last 12 months. I want the end-user (with no technical skills) to specify a minimum threshold for total value (e.g. $1,000) and number of purchases (e.g. 10) and then restrict the data set to those where total value of transactions in the last 12 months > $1,000 OR number of purchases in last 12 months > 10.
After doing that, I want to allow the user to see the data set on a dashboard (e.g. with a table and a graph) and from there select other filters (e.g. gender=male, country=Australia).
The key here is to create separate parameter tables and combine conditions using a measure.
Suppose we have the following Sales table:
Customer Value Number
-----------------------
A 568 2
B 2451 12
C 1352 9
D 876 6
E 993 11
F 2208 20
G 1612 4
Then we'll create two new tables to use as parameters. You could do a calculated table like
Number = VALUES(Sales[Number])
Or something more complex like
Value = GENERATESERIES(0, ROUNDUP(MAX(Sales[Value]),-2), ROUNDUP(MAX(Sales[Value]),-2)/10)
Or define the table manually using Enter Data or some other way.
In any case, once you have these tables, name their columns what you want (I used MinNumber and MinValue) and write your filtering measure
Filter = IF(MAX(Sales[Number]) > MIN(Number[MinCount]) ||
MAX(Sales[Value]) > MIN('Value'[MinValue]),
1, 0)
Then put your Filter measure as a visual level filter where Filter is not 0 and use MinCount and MinValues column as slicers.
If you select 10 for MinCount and 1000 for MinValue then your table should look like this:
Notice that E and G only exceed one of the thresholds and tha A and D are excluded.
To my knowledge, there is no such built-in slicer feature in Power BI at the time being. There is however a suggestion in the Power BI forum that requests a functionality like this. If you'd be willing to use the Power Query Editor, it's easy to obtain the values you're looking for, but only for hard-coded values for your limits or thresh-holds.
Let me show you how for a synthetic dataset that should fit the structure of your description:
Dataset:
CustomerID,Country,Gender,TransactionValue12,NPurchases12
51,USA,M,3516,1
58,USA,M,3308,12
57,USA,M,7360,19
54,USA,M,2052,6
51,USA,M,4889,5
57,USA,M,4746,6
50,USA,M,3803,3
58,USA,M,4113,24
57,USA,M,7421,17
58,USA,M,1774,24
50,USA,F,8984,5
52,USA,F,1436,22
52,USA,F,2137,9
58,USA,F,9933,25
50,Canada,F,7050,16
56,Canada,F,7202,5
54,Canada,F,2096,19
59,Canada,F,4639,9
58,Canada,F,5724,25
56,Canada,F,4885,5
57,Canada,F,6212,4
54,Canada,F,5016,16
55,Canada,F,7340,21
60,Canada,F,7883,6
55,Canada,M,5884,12
60,UK,M,2328,12
52,UK,M,7826,1
58,UK,M,2542,11
56,UK,M,9304,3
54,UK,M,3685,16
58,UK,M,6440,16
50,UK,M,2469,13
57,UK,M,7827,6
Desktop table:
Here you see an Input table and a subset table using two Slicers. If the forum suggestion gets implemented, it should hopefully be easy to change a subset like below to an "OR" scenario:
Transaction Value > 1000 OR Number or purchases > 10 using Power Query:
If you use Edit Queries > Advanced filter you can set it up like this:
The last step under Applied Steps will then contain this formula:
= Table.SelectRows(#"Changed Type2", each [NPurchases12] > 10 or [TransactionValue12] > 1000
Now your original Input table will look like this:
Now, if only we were able to replace the hardcoded 10 and 1000 with a dynamic value, for example from a slicer, we would be fine! But no...
I know this is not what you were looking for, but it was the best 'negative answer' I could find. I guess I'm hoping for a better solution just as much as you are!
Context
I'm working on a small web app to store photos. Photos are ordered according to their timestamp (the date they've been taken), and it's working great. Here's a simplified look at the database:
+--------------+-------------------+
| id | timestamp |
+--------------+-------------------+
| 1 | 1000000003 |
| 2 | 1000000000 |
+--------------+-------------------+
Now I'd like to add the possibility to re-order photos. And I can't find a way of doing that without any downsides.
What I did
I first added a column to the table to save a custom order.
+--------------+-------------------+-------------+
| id | timestamp | order |
+--------------+-------------------+-------------+
| 1 | 1000000003 | 1 |
| 2 | 1000000000 | 2 |
+--------------+-------------------+-------------+
First issue: I believe I can't order photos according to two different criteria, because it'd be hard to know which one has to be given precedence.
So I'm ordering them using the order column, and only this one. When I added the order column, I gave each photo a value so that the current order would remain. I now have photos ordered by order, in the same order as when they were ordered by timestamp.
I can now re-order some photos manually, and the other ones will stay where they belong. The first issue has been solved.
But now, I want to add a new photo.
Second issue: I know when the new photo I'm adding has been taken, but my photos aren't ordered by their timestamp anymore. This photo needs to be correctly ordered, thus it needs a correct order value.
This is the issue: a correct order value.
Here are two ways I could handle a new photo:
Give it an order value greater than others. In the previous table, a new photo would be given order = 3. This is obviously a bad idea, since it doesn't take its timestamp into account. A recent photo would still be the last one displayed.
"Insert" it where it belongs, according to its timestamp. Looking at the same table, if the timestamp of the new photo was 1000000002, the new photo would be given order = 2, and the order of every following photo would be increased by 1.
The second solution looks great, except in one case: if the order of the photo #2 had been manually changed to let's say 50, the new photo would have been given order = 50 even though it belongs among the first photos (according to its timestamp).
What I need
What I need is a way of ordering photos according to their timestamp and to their manually-set order.
Maybe you have a solution to the second issue I highlighted, or maybe you're aware of a whole other way to deal with this. Either way, thank you for your help.
At no point in your question do you mention computers or programming languages. This is OK (actually, it's a good approach, get the problem and solution worked out on paper before coding) and here's an answer which also ignores computers and programming languages.
Put all your photos into a shoebox in the order in which you get them.
Now, take three pieces of paper:
On page 1 write the numbers (one to a line) from 1 to N (the number of photos the box can hold). Whenever you put a photo in the box, write its timestamp on the line corresponding to its order in the box.
On page 2 write the timestamp of photo 1 a few lines down. Write a 1 on the same line. For the next photo, write its timestamp in the appropriate place on the paper, leaving as much space above and below as seems necessary for future photo insertions. Write a 2 on the same line. Continue until you run out of space between lines, when you need to copy all the information onto a new version of the page with more space for insertions. The information on this page is the same as the information on page 1, but with the two numbers on each line swapping positions.
On page 3 write the numbers from 1 to N again. As you collect each photo write its number from page 1 (ie its number in the sequence of all photo numbers) in the correct position for your manually-set ordering. You'll probably have to do a lot of rubbing-out and re-writing on this page as you decide that latecomers ought to be inserted high onto this page.
Now you have:
a store for your photos, the shoebox; you should already have realised that you can't store the photos in more than one order at a time;
three indexes (indices if you prefer); the first is fixed and simply assigns a unique sequence number to each photo; it also tells you the timestamp of each photo in the box;
the second index enables you to find the unique sequence number of a photo given its timestamp, and then find the photo in the shoebox;
the third index allows you to order photos as you wish; the first number on each line is the sequence number in the sorted order, the second number is the photo's unique sequence number from the first index.
All of this is an extremely long-winded way of telling you that, since you can't (either in a shoebox or a computerised data store) keep photos in multiple orders simultaneously, you will have to maintain indices for the orderings you wish to use. Those indices point (that's what an index does) from a number to a location in the shoebox, either directly or indirectly.
I've poured through here looking for an answer to this, but haven't found it anywhere.
I have an Access 2010 database with two tables:
one with about 14k codes and definitions(all five digits, including some letters).
one with a total of 900k records, each record containing pairs of combinations of these same codes (each code in the pair in a separate column, CODE1 and CODE2)
When our office gets a new project, I have to check to see if the codes used in the project match any one of those pairs of combinations. Some projects only use two codes, but some can have as many as twenty or more.
I would like to be able to enter in all the codes used in any one project into either a text field or memo field, then have Access show me if a combination exists between any of those codes.
Example: If I have 5 codes, I want to see if any of the 900k pairs of codes contains ANY 1 of those 5 codes in both CODE1 and CODE2.
Anyone know how to do this, or if this is even possible in Access 2010?
No, I think you want another table with the code IDs (2-20) for each project, then you can cross join it with itself to get your set of pairs, then inner join it with your pairs table, 900k
If suppose I have source with seven records from that first three must go in 3 target instances and 4th record again have to go into first target how can I achieve it?
Here is one way to achieve this result.
I use a sequence transformation to generate a series of numbers (starting with 1., increment by 1..).
I then route the table rows into one of the three targets based on this sequence number (using mod(nextval,3)) which will result in 0,1 or 2. Here are the three groups for the Router.
Group 1 : MOD(NEXTVAL,3)=0
Group 2 : MOD(NEXTVAL,3)=1
Group 3 : MOD(NEXTVAL,3)=2
Also, could you please explain why you need the table be loaded into multiple instances?
I have never really come across such scenarios before.