We are having a result count issue where the pages have 10 results per page. For pagination we are getting 64 result count on page 1 (ie start=0), 25 for page 2, and 21 for page 3.
I understand as per documentation for estimated vs actual results that it is not guaranteed but the above result count is when I set filter=0 and rc=1. The rc=1 does not appear to make a difference when included or not. We are on version 7.2.0.G.252
filter=0&rc=1 should work for you and you should see the same count even after paginating.
What you need to notice is, when you click on pagination link, make sure the filter=0&rc=1 are carried over. i.e., after pagination, see if you still have the filter and rc parameters intact.
Also check using the default_frontend as your custom frontend may not be handling it?
The problem was related to the collection not the query. The content match pattern did not include a "/" at end which when resolved gave an accurate count. Thanks for the assistance.
Related
I have this Analysis that I wish to invoke from URL (which I can).
This analysis in particular is mounted on a dashboard and 6 of the 17 columns can be filtered from a prompt mounted on the same dashboard.
I only need the analysis and still be able to filter the results. I read about parameters that can be given to the URL, but I can't seem to make the filters work. I am using the &P0=n parameter and the consequent &P1=xx parameter.
Without the &P I am able to see the table, when I add parameters I get this error UH6MBRBC:E6MUPJPH.
Thanks for your time, have a nice day.
Got it to work by myself afterall (always best).
Basically instead of &p0 and such I used &coln and &valn (where n is the column number):
&coln - is the name of the field
&valn - is the value for which you filter
More information and better explanation can be found here.
Im new to Report Builder and having issues with some expressions that Im trying to implement in a report. I got the standard ones to work however as soon as I try any distinctions, I get error messages. Over the last couple weeks, Ive tried many combinations, read the expression help, google and looking at other questions at internet sites. To reduce my frustrations, I even would jump to other expressions and walk away hoping I would have different insight coming back.
Its probably something simple or something I dont know about writing expressions.
Im hoping that someone can help with these expressions; they are the versions I get the least errors with(usually just expression expected) and show what Im trying to accomplish.
=IIF((Fields!RECORDFLAG.Value)='D',COUNTDISTINCT(Fields!TICKETNUM.Value),0)
=IIF((Fields!TRANSTYPE.Value)='1' and (Fields!RECORDFLAG.VALUE)='A' or
'B',SUM(Fields!DOLLARS.Value),0)
=IIF((Fields!TRANSTYPE.Value)='1' and
(Fields!RECORDFLAG.VALUE)='P',SUM(Fields!DOLLARS.Value),0)
=Sum([DOLLARS] case when [RECORDFLAG]='P' then -1*[DOLLARS])
Thank You.
=IIF((Fields!RECORDFLAG.Value)=”D”,COUNTDISTINCT(Fields!TICKETNUM.Value))
The error message gives you the answer here - no false part of the iif() has been specified. Use =IIF((Fields!RECORDFLAG.Value)=”D”,COUNTDISTINCT(Fields!TICKETNUM.Value), 0)
=IIF((Fields!TRANSTYPE.Value)="1" and (Fields!RECORDFLAG.VALUE)="A" or "B",SUM(Fields!DOLLARS.Value),0)
This is not how an OR works in SSRS. Use:
=IIF((Fields!TRANSTYPE.Value)="1" and (Fields!RECORDFLAG.VALUE="A" or Fields!RECORDFLAG.Value = "B"),SUM(Fields!DOLLARS.Value),0)
The 0s are returned due to your report design. countdistinct() is an aggregate function - it's meant to be used on a set of data. However, your iif() is only testing on a per row basis - you're basically saying "if the current row is thing, count all the distinct values" which doesn't make sense. There are a couple of ways forward:
You can count the number of times a certain value occurs in a given condition using a sum(). This is not the same as the countdistinct(), but if you use =sum(iif(Fields!RECORDFLAG.Value = "D", 1, 0)) then you will get the number of times RECORDFLAG is D in that set. Note: this requires the data to be aggregated (so in SSRS, grouped in a tablix).
You can use custom code to count distinct values in a set. See https://itsalocke.com/aggregate-on-a-lookup-in-ssrs/. You can apply this even if you have only one dataset - just reference the same one twice.
You can change the way your report works. You can group on Fields!RECORDFLAG.Value and filter the group to where Fields!RECORDFLAG.Value = "D". Then in your textbox, use =countdistinct(Fields!TICKETNUM.Value) to get the distinct values for TICKETNUM when RECORDFLAG is D.
I am facing a strange issue with a specific search.
I would expect the below two queries to return the same result set since space between keywords interpreted as AND anyway:
1) inurl:taskcracker Angela restart crash
2) inurl:taskcracker Angela AND restart crash
First one returns 42 results where the highlighted keywords on the search result page includes 'start' in addition to 'restart'. Whereas the second query returns only 2 results with 'restart' only (no 'start') which what I was expecting from the first search as well.
Please note that it does not matter whether I put an AND in front of other keywords on the 2nd query. It only makes a difference when I put or don't put an AND in front of 'restart'
I initially thought that maybe restart is in the synonyms list under Search > Query Settings > Synonym Data > English in the GSA admin panel but it is not there.
So the issue is when I don't put an explicit AND in front of 'restart' GSA expands it to include 'start' as well.
Any ideas whether this comes from a configuration somewhere on the admin panel or likely to be a bug?
This is probably because query expansion doesn't work when you put AND before "restart".
Can you try adding &entqr=0 to the URL being sent to the GSA? It controls the the query expansion policy. You can also try &entqrm=0 too if first one doesn't work.
I'm attempting to use ElasticSearch for analytics -- specifically to track "top content" for hand-rolled Rails CMS. The requirement is quite a bit more complicated than keeping a counter for each piece of content. I won't get into the depth of problem right now, as I can't seem to get even the basics working.
My problem is this: I'm using facets and the counts aren't what I expect them to be. For example:
Query:
{"facets":{"el_ids":{"terms":{"field":"el_id","size":1,"all_terms":false,"order":"count"}}}}
Result:
{"el_ids":{"_type":"terms","missing":0,"total":16672,"other":16657,"terms":[{"term":"quis","count":15}]}}
Ok, great, the piece of content with id "quis" had 15 hits and since the order is count, it should be my top piece of content. Now lets get the top 5 pieces of content.
Query:
{"facets":{"el_ids":{"terms":{"field":"el_id","size":5,"all_terms":false,"order":"count"}}}}
Result (just the facet):
[
{"term":"qgz9","count":26},
{"term":"quis","count":15},
{"term":"hnqn","count":15},
{"term":"higp","count":15},
{"term":"csns","count":15}
]
Huh? So the piece of content w/ id "qgz9" had more hits with 26? Why wasn't it the top result in the first query?
Ok, lets get the top 100 now.
Query:
{"facets":{"el_ids":{"terms":{"field":"el_id","size":100,"all_terms":false,"order":"count"}}}}
Results (just the facet):
[
{"term":"qgz9","count":43},
{"term":"difc","count":37},
{"term":"zryp","count":31},
{"term":"u65r","count":31},
{"term":"sxsi","count":31},
...
]
So now "qgz9" has 43 hits instead of 26? How can that be? I can assure you there's nothing happening in the background modifying the index. If I repeat these queries, I get the same results.
As I repeat this process of increasing the result size, counts continue to change and new content ids emerge at the top. Can someone explain to me what I'm doing wrong or where my understanding of how this works is flawed?
It turns out that this is a known issue:
...the way top N facets work now is by getting the top N from each shard, and merging the results. This can give inaccurate results.
By default, my index was being created with 5 shards. By changing this so the index only has a single shard, the counts behave inline with my expectations. Another workaround would be to always set size to a value greater than the number of expected facets and peel off the top N results.
Just out of curiosity, is there a name for the kind of navigation I've been working on?
It looks like this:
<<first <previous 1 2 3 4 5 [...] 20 next> last>>
i.e. navigation where you've got x pages, but you don't want to show x links, you want to limit the amount of space taken up, so you show y links at a time, and indicate the existence of the other pages with an elision.
At some point in the middle, it would look like this:
<<first <previous [...] 8 9 10 11 12 [...] 20 next> last>>
with elisions on both sides.
Answering to just clear up this question. I hereby declare that it has no official name.
I also hereby make up the name 'elided pagination' for it.
It's called web pagination, search result pagination.
thresholded navigation pager?
Not sure what the ordinary version of this pagination scheme is called (if anything).
However, I came up with an advanced version of it capable of handling very large numbers of pages (where ellipses (...) skip successively larger blocks of pages as you get further away from either the current page or the endpoints).
I called my scheme "Logarithmic pagination" or "Logarithmic page navigation".
You can find it (with implementation) on stackoverflow here.