I am querying for objects by a geopoint field : location -
var query = new Parse.Query("pointOfinterest");
query.withinKilometers("location", userLocation, searchRadius);
I want the primary sorting order to be by distance and secondary by creation date.In other words - I'd like results from the same distance to be ordered by date ( descending - newest first )
so I tried adding :
query.ascending("location");
query.addDescending("createdAt");
or just:
query.descending("createdAt");
or :
query.addDescending("createdAt");
doesn't work - when I add the createdAt , the location order gets messed up
From Parse.com developer guide:
Note that if an additional orderByAscending()/orderByDescending()
constraint is applied, it will take precedence over the distance
ordering.
See this link.
So, I think you should get the array first and order it on createdAt yourself.
Also, the order is ascending by distance on default, so no need to order on distance in your query.
Related
I've been trying to do a report about the quantity of breakdonws of products in our company. The problem is that the QUERY function is operating as normal, but the sorting order is well - a bit strange.
The data I'm trying to sort are as follows (quantities are blacked out since I cannot share those informations):
Raw data
First column - name of the product, second, it's EAN code, third, breakdown rate for last year, last column - average breakdown rate. "b/d" means "brak danych" or no data.
What I want to achieve is to get the end table with values sorted by average breakdown rate.
My query is as follows:
=query(Robocze!A2:D;"select A where A is not null and NOT D contains 'b/d' order by D desc")
Final result
As You can see, we have descending order, but there are strange artifacts - like the 33.33% after 4,00% and before 3,92%.
Why is that!?
try:
=INDEX(LAMBDA(x; SORT(x; INDEX(x;; 4)*1; 0))
(QUERY(Robocze!A2:D; "where A is not null and NOT D contains 'b/d'"; 0));; 4)
I have a parameter 'type' in a table and it can have multiple values as follows -
human
chimpanzee
orangutan
I have 3 columns related to each type in the table -
human_avg_height, human_avg_weight, human_avg_lifespan
chimpanzee_avg_height, chimpanzee_avg_weight, chimpanzee_avg_lifespan
orangutan_avg_height, orangutan_avg_weight, orangutan_avg_lifespan
So if i select the type as human, the quicksight dashboard should only display the three columns -
human_avg_height, human_avg_weight, human_avg_lifespan
and should not display the following columns -
chimpanzee_avg_height, chimpanzee_avg_weight, chimpanzee_avg_lifespan
orangutan_avg_height, orangutan_avg_weight, orangutan_avg_lifespan
I created the parameter type and in the add calculated fields I am trying to use ifelse to select the columns based on the parameter selected as follows -
ifelse(${type}='human',{human_avg_height}, {human_avg_weight}, {human_avg_lifespan},{function})
I also tried -
ifelse(${type}='human',{{human_avg_height}, {human_avg_weight}, {human_avg_lifespan},{function}})
And -
ifelse(${type}='human',{human_avg_height, human_avg_weight, human_avg_lifespan},{function}})
But none of it is working. What am i doing wrong ?
One way to do this would be to use three different calculated fields, one for all the heights, one for weights and one for lifespan. The heights one would look like this:
ifelse(
${type}='human',{human_avg_height}, ifelse(
${type}='chimpanzee', { chimpanzee_avg_height}, ifelse(
${type}='orangutan',{ orangutan_avg_height},
NULL
)))
Make another calculated field for weights and lifespan and then add these calculated fields to your table, and filter by type.
To make it clear to the viewer what data is present, edit the Title of the visual to include the type:
${type} Data
You have to create one calculated field for each measure using the ifelse with the type to choose the correct vale, but is not necessary to create inner ifelse as skabo did, the if else syntax is ifelse(if, then [, if, then ...], else) so you can define the calculated fields as follows:
avg_height = ifelse(${type}='human', {human_avg_height}, ${type}='chimpanzee', {chimpanzee_avg_height},${type}='orangutan', {orangutan_avg_height}, NULL)
avg_weight = ifelse(${type}='human', {human_avg_weight}, ${type}='chimpanzee', {chimpanzee_avg_weight},${type}='orangutan', {orangutan_avg_weight}, NULL)
avg_lifespan = ifelse(${type}='human', {human_avg_lifespan}, ${type}='chimpanzee', {chimpanzee_avg_lifespan},${type}='orangutan', {orangutan_avg_lifespan}, NULL)
Then use those calculated fields in your visuals.
I want to count the occurrences of values in a column. In my case the value I want to count is TRUE().
Lets say my table is called Table and has two columns:
boolean value
TRUE() A
FALSE() B
TRUE() A
TRUE() B
All solutions I found so far are like this:
count_true = COUNTROWS(FILTER(Table, Table[boolean] = TRUE()))
The problem is that I still want the visual (card), that displays the measure, to consider the filters (coming from the slicers) to reduce the table. So if I have a slicer that is set to value = A, the card with the count_true measure should show 2 and not 3.
As far as I understand the FILTER function always overwrites the visuals filter context.
To further explain my intent: At an earlier point the TRUE/FALSE column had the values 1/0 and I could achieve my goal by just using the SUM function that does not specify a filter context and just acts within the visuals filter context.
I think the DAX you gave should work as long as it's a measure, not a calculated column. (Calculated columns cannot read filter context from the report.)
When evaluating the measure,
count_true = COUNTROWS ( FILTER ( Table, Table[boolean] = TRUE() ) )
the first argument inside FILTER is not necessarily the full table but that table already filtered by the local filter context (including report/page/visual filters along with slicer selections and local context from e.g. rows/column a matrix visual).
So if you select Value = "A" via slicer, then the table in FILTER is already filtered to only include "A" values.
I do not know for sure if this will fix your problem but it is more efficient dax in my opinion:
count_true = CALCULATE(COUNTROWS(Table), Table[boolean])
If you still have the issue after changing your measure to use this format, you may have an underlying issue with the model. There is also the function KEEPFILTERS that may apply here but I think using KEEPFILTERS is overcomplicating your case.
In Excel I could, if I was in a table called 'Sales' that had four columns
Sales
Month, CustomerId, ProductId, TotalQuantity
Jan,1, CAR,
Feb,1, CAR,
I could add a formula:
=SUMIFS(Sales[Quantity],Sales[CustomerId],[#[CustomerId]])
That would go to the Sales table and sum the CustomerID column filtered by the CustomerID of the current row where the formula has been entered.
I am attempted to replicate this in a PowerBI Calculated Row but I can't get the # working for a row reference. It comes across like
TotalQuantity = CALCULATE(SUM(Sales[Quantity]),Sales[CustomerId] = Sales[CustomerId]))
Any idea how to get the equivalent # working?
I think the key function you are missing is EARLIER. That is not surprising because it has a misleading name - it really means "Current Row". You also need a FILTER function in the Filter parameter of CALCULATE, to reset the filter context to the entire table.
So your New Column function might look like this:
TotalQuantity = CALCULATE(SUM(Sales[Quantity]), FILTER(Sales, Sales[CustomerId] = EARLIER (Sales[CustomerId])))
Here's a neat example, from the most accessible source site for DAX formulas:
http://www.powerpivotpro.com/2013/07/writing-a-subtotal-calc-column-aka-the-simplest-use-of-the-earlier-function/
And FWIW here is the official doco on EARLIER:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee634551.aspx
I have the following SOQL query to display List of ABCs in my Page block table.
Public List<ABC__c> getABC(){
List<ABC__c> ListABC = [Select WB1__c, WB2__c, WB3__c, Number, tentative__c, Actual__c, PrepTime__c, Forecast__c from ABC__c ORDER BY WB3__c];
return ListABC;
}
As you can see in the above image, WB3 has number of records for A, B and C. But I want to display only 1 record for each WB3 group based on Actual__c. Only latest Actual__c must be displayed for each WB3 Group.
i.e., Ideally I want to display only 3 rows(one each for A,B,C) in this example.
For this, I have used GROUPBY and displayed the result using AggregateResults. Here is the result.
I got the Latest Actual Date for each WB3 as shown above. But the Tentative date is not corresponding to it. The Tentative Date is also the MAX in the list.
Here is the code I used
public List<SiteMonitoringOverview> getSPM(){
AggregateResult[] AgR = [Select WB_3__c, MAX(Tentaive_Date__c) dtTentativeDate , MAX(Actual_Date__c) LatestCDate FROM Site_progress_Monitoring__c GROUP BY WBS_3__c];
if(AgR.size()>0){
for(AggregateResult SalesList : AgR){
CustSumList.add(new SiteMonitoringOverview(String.ValueOf(SalesList.get('WB_3__c')), String.valueOf(SalesList.get('dtTentativeDate')), String.valueOF(SalesList.get('LatestCDate')) ));
}
}
return CustSumList;
}
I am forced to use MAX() for tentative date. I want the corresponding Tentative date of the MAX Actual Date. Not the Max Tentative Date.
For group A, the Tentative Date of Max Actual Date is 12/09/2012. But it is displaying the MAX tentative date: 27/02/2013. It should display 12/09/2012. This is because I am using MAX(Tentative_Date__c) in my code. Every column in the SOQL query must be either GROUPED or AGGREGATED. That's weird.
How do I get the required 3 rows in this example?
Any suggestions? Any different approach (looping within in groups)? how?
Just ran into this issue myself. The solution I came up with only works if you want the oldest or newest record from each grouping. Unfortunately it probably won't work in your case. I'll still leave this here incase it does happen to help someone searching for a solution to this issue.
AggregateResult[] groupedResults = [Select Max(Id), WBS_3__c FROM Site_progress_Monitoring__c GROUP BY WBS_3__c];
Calling MAX or MIN on the Id will let you get 1 record per group condition. You can then query other information. I my case I just need 1 record from each group and didn't really care which one it was.