I am working on some legacy code, and I have the following wonderful issue. I am hoping some FoxPro experts can help!
The infrastructure of this legacy system is setup so that I have to use the built-in expression engine to return a result set, so no go on the SQL (i know that would be so much easier!)
Here is the issue.
I need to be able to do something like
PUBLIC ARRAY(20) ArrayOfValuesToFilterBy
SELECT dataTable
SET FILTER TO logicalField = .T. and otherField NOT INLIST(ArrayOfValuesToFilterBy)
However, I know this wont work, I just need the equivalency...not using SQL.
I can generate the list of values to filter by via SQL, just not the final record select due to the legacy infrastructure constraint.
Thanks!
First, a logical field you do not have to do explicit
set filter to Logicalfield = .t.
you can just do
set filter to LogicalField
or
set filter to NOT LogicalField
Next, on the array. VFP has a function ASCAN() which will scan an array for a value, if found, will return the row number within the array that matches what you are looking for.
As for arrays... ex:
DIMENSION MyArray[3]
MyArray[1] = "test1"
MyArray[2] = "something"
MyArray[3] = "anything else"
? ASCAN( MyArray, "else" ) && this will return 0
? ASCAN( MyArray, "anything else" ) && this will return 3
If you are doing a "set filter", the array needs to be "in scope" for the duration of the filter. If you set filter in a procedure the array exists, leave the procedure and the array is gone, you're done.
So, you could do
set filter to LogicalField and ASCAN( YourArray, StringColumnFromTable ) > 0
Now, if you want a subset to WORK WITH, you can do a SQL-Select and pull the data into a CURSOR (temporary read-write table) that has the same capabilities of the original table (except auto-increment when adding)...
I typically name my temporary cursors prefixed with "C_" for "CURSOR OF" so when I'm working with tables, I know if its production data, or just available for temp purposes for quicker display, presentation, extractions from other origins as needed.
use in select( "C_FinalRecords" )
select * from YourTable ;
where LogicalField ;
and ASCAN( YourArray, StringColumnFromTable ) > 0;
into cursor C_FinalRecords READWRITE
Then, you can just use that...
select C_FinalRecords
scan
do something with the record, or values of it...
endscan
or.. bind to a grid in a form, etc...
The INLIST() function takes an expression to search for and up to 24 expressions of the same data type to search.
SELECT dataTable
SET FILTER TO logicalField = .T. AND NOT INLIST(otherField, 'Value1', 'Value2', 'Value3', 'Value4')
I am making some assumptions here, that what you want to do is create a filter with a dynamic in list statement ? If this is correct have a play with this example :-
lcList1="ABCD"
lcList2="EFGH"
lcList3="IJKL"
lcList4="MNOP"
lcList5="QRST"
lcFullList=""
lcFullList=lcFullList+"'"+lcList1+"',"
lcFullList=lcFullList+"'"+lcList2+"',"
lcFullList=lcFullList+"'"+lcList3+"',"
lcFullList=lcFullList+"'"+lcList4+"',"
lcFullList=lcFullList+"'"+lcList5+"'"
lcField="PCode"
lcFilter="SET FILTER TO INLIST ("+lcField+","+lcFullList+")"
The results of the above would create the following filter statement and store it in lcFilter
SET FILTER TO INLIST (PCode,'ABCD','EFGH','IJKL','MNOP','QRST')
you can then use macro substitution
Select dataTable
&lcFilter
Bear in mind that there is likely to be some limitations on how many items you can define in a INLIST() statement
Related
I have an unrelated table ('Selected Values Slicer') that is then used as a slicer to select values. I need to use these selected values to filter another table ('Results Table').
Doesn't seem to be working as I'd expect it to. The output shows a 0 when more then 1 item is selected but works ok when 1 value is selected
VAR __SelectedValues =
CONCATENATEX(
ALLSELECTED('Selected Values Slicer'[Description]),
'Selected Values Slicer'[Description],
",")
RETURN
CALCULATE(
[TotalCount],
'Results Table'[Description] IN {__SelectedValues}
)
__SelectedValues RETURNS "Selected Value 1,Selected Value 2"
What I'm expecting is __SelectedValues to RETURN "Selected Value 1","Selected Value 2"
The following syntax will return "Selected Value 1","Selected Value 2" as you asks
CONCATENATEX(
ALLSELECTED('Selected Values Slicer'[Description])
,"""" & 'Selected Values Slicer'[Description] & """"
,","
)
Regarding filtering. I was trying to use the string as filter, but I didn't manage it the way you want. I can't say what is the reason for DAX not to do that, but asked Marco Russo about the case. So, I'll add the answer since a get it (upd. the answer added to the end of the answer).
To filter the table with a string of CONCATENAX() you can try the following sytax ( I checked it with a dummy data):
VAR __SelectedValues =
CONCATENATEX(
ALLSELECTED('Selected Values Slicer'[Description])
,'Selected Values Slicer'[Description]
,","
)
RETURN
CALCULATE(
[TotalCount]
,FILTER(
'Results Table'
,CONTAINSSTRING(
__SelectedValues
,'Results Table'[Description]
)
)
)
Regarding result you want to achieve. A below code, I believe, is enough. You have a slicer and you want to apply its values to the result. I have a feeling, you don't need to change a contex to the slicer and no context can influence it. If it's not like that, then the code should be altered, but the idea remains the same - get a column with a unique values and use it as a filter. I checked the syntax and it was functioning.
CALCULATE(
[TotalCount]
,'Results Table'[Description] IN VALUES('Selected Values Slicer'[Description])
)
P.S.
My first answer was not ok. I messed some info and gave an incorrect input. I'm sorry for that.
P.S.S. The answer from Marco Russo:
"IN looks for an exact match in a table (IN VALUE is a better choice for your need, and a better one is:
TREATAS ( VALUES ( slicer[column1] ), table[color] )
The result of CONCATENATEX is a string, so you should use CONTAINSSTRING - DAX Guide to do the search, but it would be slower and potentially inaccurate."
This is the answer from his colleague
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.
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/
)
I have the following situation within a PL/SLQ function. Depending of existing table field value I might run a different select. Specifically: I can have multiple rows for a particular BILL CODE (PINGPONG) where I would only need to get the SYS_FIELD value. This field has to be fetched only once according to following condition: If fields prep_seq_num=0 and primary_ind=0 then just get this row sys_field value straightaway and do not take care of other possible prep_seq_num and primary_ind values different from 0. If that rows is not existing, fetch the sys_field value from prep_seq_num!=0 and primary_ind=1. For both case only one instance/row must be possible So in the first case I should run:
SELECT SYS_FIELD
INTO v_start_of_invoice
FROM BILL
WHERE TRACKING_ID = v_previous_trackingID
AND BSCO_CODE_ID = 'PINGPONG'
AND CHRG_ACCT_ID = v_ACCT_ID
AND PREP_SEQ_NUM = 0 -- maybe not needed here
AND ITEM_CAT_CODE_ID=1
AND PARTITION_KEY = v_prev_partition
AND SUBPARTITION_KEY = v_prev_subpartition
AND PRIMARY_IND=0;
In the second case
SELECT SYS_FIELD
INTO v_start_of_invoice
FROM BILL
WHERE TRACKING_ID = v_previous_trackingID
AND BILL_CODE_ID = 'PINGPONG'
AND ITEM_CAT_CODE_ID in ('5' , '-100')
AND PARTITION_KEY = v_prev_partition
AND SUBPARTITION_KEY = v_prev_subpartition
AND PRIMARY_IND=1;
Not sure I'm making it very complicated, but still I 'd need to know whether IF THEN ELSE or CASE or whatever should be used and how.
You can utilize an implicit cursor for loop.
for rec IN ( <your query that gives all records)
LOOP
--compare the value of this variable and decide in the IF condition.
IF rec.prep_seq_num=0 and rec.primary_ind=0
THEN
-- write the query to get the sys_field
ELSE
-- write alternative query.
END IF;
END LOOP;
I have a query below from source this is how Active flag for target is derived
select case when active_end_date is null then 'Y' else 'N' end
from csi_item_instances cii
where instance_id = <<INSTALL BASE ID>> --- (MP.INSTALL_BASE_ID)
I am comparing the active field value using the SQL below, is there better way to do this?
select * from stgdba.Stg_s_csi_item_instances cii, MDHDBA.M_CUSTOMER_PRODUCT mp
where cii.instance_id= MP.INSTALL_BASE_ID
and cii.active_end_date is null
and MP.ACTIVE_FLAG = 'N'
If that value is to be permanently calculated like that, you could do that in a view / computed column, which would make the logic a bit more permanent and not repeated all over the place.
(Stylistically, I would also try using ANSI joins a bit more.)