im trying to update a worksheet, by using queries. Now i have a problem, cause the imported Data keeps getting turned into a table , although the resource Data is not a table.
Basically i want the columns A:E in worksheet(x), to get updated with columns A:E from worksheet(xyz) and keep the formatting from worksheet(xyz).
Power Query always returns output in the form of table as it's easier to address the respective data positions via vectors. assume you have 2 queries, then it's much easier to merge/append since they are treated as relational data tables.
you can always convert the output table back to range but the connection to query will be lost.
Related
I am trying to create a data table with multiple outputs across periods, but for the same scenarios.
Is it possible to create that without inserting an extra column between each output column to deliver input for the data table (i.e. input column = index 50-110).
Is this in any way possible? See picture of what I would usually mark to create the data table (this does only cover one period/output though). But if I were to make the scenario for FY23, then I would need to insert a column between FY22 and FY23 where I copy the index 50-110 again. I would like to not have to do that.
I have a table with several column having the same name.
This columns is updated and provided regularly to power bi.
The columns has several columns with the same name such as "Result", "Result" and do so on...
However, Power BI adds each time in an automated way a number after my columns.
When I try to "force" power bi not to have a number, I get the following message
"The name "Result" is already used for a column..."
How could I change this?
The only way would be for the people using my file to extract the data and correct the name manually in excel...which is not great
You cannot edit this behavior, PowerBI needs an unique identifier to reference the data, therefore the column name must be unique within a table (the complete identifier is given by table + column), otherwise the tool won't be able to reference the data.
This rule usually applies to any tool that manages data and sometimes to the data themselves (that's up to the format though). How can the tool get data from "Result" if more than one column has this identifier? which is the right one? The tool does not know and based on the context can give you an error or will fix this issue itself by making the names unique.
Note that also excel will append numbers to the columns (with the same name names) if you put the data in a proper table (insert-> table), in fact, an excel sheet can be considered unstructured free data, meanwhile, an excel table will enforce the data structure.
Most tools (like PowerBI) will also enforce data types.
I have a data set of employee's sales over a given period and a blank/custom column to be used for any adjustments needing to be added by Accounting like such:
I would like to have another table whose rows are added anytime the Adjustment column is modified. It would look like this, but with the actual values for the Adjustments column:
The reason for my trying to accomplish this is due to the Data Set is coming directly from a localized Database and loses any adjustments entered in this row when the data is refreshed. There may be a simpler way to accomplish this just using the currently established connection to the database but I'm at a loss.
I have a query in an ACCDB that works fine in Access.
I can successfully copy/paste its data to Excel.
However, from Excel, if I try to insert a Pivot Table using External Data Source, pointing to the very same query, then some numeric fields have weird formatting and some calculated numeric columns (formula in the query) have their value divided by 100 compared to the source.
Never seen that behaviour. Any suggestion ?
The whole MS-Office setup is in 2010.
What I have already done in the source query (without visible improvement):
used CCur() to make sure the figures are in a coherent data type
set the Format property of those culprit columns to "Standard"
The behaviour is exactly the same on other PCs in the same bank.
I could solve the problem which was due to 2 different bugs, probably in JetOLEDB.
Like is not handled properly by Excel
The query contained some formulae using Like:
iif(someField Like "XX*";0;anotherField).
Changing this to iif(Left(somefield;2) = "XX";0;anotherField) solved calculation differences between Excel but and Access.
Reference to another calculated column is handled differently
Say you have 2 query columns:
Rate: i.Rate *100 (i is a table alias)
Amount: Rate*Price
Access calculates Amount using the Rate calculated column, while Excel uses the Rate field from table i.Therefore I had to change the Amount expression to:
Rate: i.Rate *100
Amount: i.Rate *100*Price
since Excel does not seem to make always use Rate from the table (i.Rate).
Use the query in Access to first Make Table in Access then import the table to excel.
I have a table in Excel that I want to filter. It will have a maximum of 1 million rows and 80 columns. All the calculations etc are done programatically in arrays to cut dwn processing time. However, I want to also filter the results to display only certain results based on one column value, followed by a top 5% based on another filter value.
When I first did the sheet, it was limited to 65000 results so there were no problems with the size of the data set. I just invoked the worksheet filter functions from code and did it that way. Can I do it that way with a larger data set or is there a way to filter an array the way you d a dataset on a sheet?
Thanks
As already mentioned by everyone, excel 2007 will take you to a million rows, but its slower than the excel 2003 that I presume you're using at the moment so filtering using it wouldn't be advisable.
Along with mysql, ms access is also an option.
You really should put that data in an Access table and use Excel's Database Query to do the job. Since it can also filter retrieved data based on a cell value, it's a great combination.
Storing the data in a database brings you another interesting option (depending on what you want to do): to query your database using PowerPivot.
Although using a relational DB would be preferable in many ways, if you don't have any formulas then filtering your data (1 million rows by 80 columns) using Excel will be reasonably fast (< 1 or 2 seconds depending on what sort of filtering you want to do, which will probably be faster than an un-indexed DB table) assuming that you have enough RAM. If you do have any formulas then you will probably need to be in Manual calculation mode to avoid the filtering process triggering multiple recalculations.