I have two custom columns at the end of the query named "Total" and "GST", the "Total" column sums columns "Storage", "PltHire", "Admin", "InActivity", "OutActivity", "Add Activity", "Freight", "Packaging" and "Other". While the "GST" Column is 10% of the "Total" Column, I have used the round function in power query and set it to 2 decimal places and for some reason the "GST" column is not rounding correctly. If you review the image it shows that the highlighted row has $154.25 which power query has rounded to $15.42 this should actually round to $15.43. I'm not sure if I have done anything that I need to before hand so if anyone can help me that would be great and if you need anymore information please let me know.
Note - what I found odd was that when I created another custom column for the total column which added the total and gst ([total]*1.1 instead of [total]*0.1) that column was able to round correctly?
Thanks!
I have tried to change the M code by using the following but to no avail.
Number.Round(value as nullable number, digits as nullable number, roundingMode as nullable number) as nullable number
There isn't a uniform consensus on rounding 0.5. In fact, rounding to the even (Power Query default) is less biased than rounding up. Fortunately, the Power Query Number.Round function allows for different rounding styles as the optional 3rd argument.
You likely want Number.Round([Custom],2,0) or, equivalently, Number.Round([Custom],2,RoundingMode.Up) but you have the following options as well:
RoundingMode.Down (or 1)
RoundingMode.AwayFromZero (or 2)
RoundingMode.TowardsZero (or 3)
RoundingMode.ToEven (or 4) [default]
Ken Puls discussed this back in Sep 2014:
I do not think it has been fixed so Ken's article is still valid.
You will want to use RoundingMode.AwayFromZero if you want to match how Exel handles rounding:
=Number.Round([Value],2,RoundingMode.AwayFromZero)
Related
I wondering if anyone will be able to help me sort the formula below out:
=IFERROR((VLOOKUP($D96,August!$C:$P,F$78,FALSE))-(VLOOKUP($D96,July!$C:$O,(F$78+1),FALSE)),IF(U96="NEW PART",(VLOOKUP($D96,July!$C:$O,(F$78+1),FALSE)),IF(V96="NEW PART",(VLOOKUP($D96,August!$C:$O,(F$78),FALSE)),"")))
Originally the formula was
=IFERROR((VLOOKUP($D95,August!$C:$P,F$78,FALSE))-(VLOOKUP($D95,July!$C:$O,(F$78+1),FALSE)),"BLANK")
However rather than returning "BLANK" if either sheet does not include that part number I would like the formula to return the figure on the one sheet they appear on. Columns U and V highlight weather the product number is on each sheet. These figures would be + figures if they appear in august and minus figures if they appear in July.
Link/screenshot refer:
In short - replace final 'FALSE' with an additional iferror(Aug,-July)
(see revision at end, following comments / feedback re sound applications/customizing soln as required)..
Formula - per OP request
=IFERROR(VLOOKUP(H4,B4:C14,2,FALSE)-VLOOKUP(H4,E4:F14,2,FALSE),IFERROR(VLOOKUP(H4,B4:C14,2,FALSE),-VLOOKUP(H4,E4:F14,2,FALSE)))
Improvised version
(pre-requisite: Office 365 compatible version of Excel)
=LET(A,INDEX(C4:C14,MATCH(H4#,B4:B14,0)),B,INDEX(F4:F14,MATCH(H4#,E4:E14,0)),IFERROR(A-B,IFERROR(A,-B)))
Motive
Arguments in favour of this version include:
OP version: 127 chars (vs 104) i.e. ~20-25% length reduction on this basis
Audit/review - arguably easier given let function
Flexibility: unless you plan to take advantage of vlookup 'approximate matching' (using True flag instead of False), Index more robust in that it can handle forward and backward references in relation to the indexed column (i.e. with vlookup, index has to lie to left of the column comprising the cell to be returned)
The usual benefits assoc. with 'spill' ranges (i.e. potential for 'dynamic' range feature and automatic calc. from single cell entry)
REVISION:
The following screenshot should shed some light on references/ranges you may wish to alter for 1st formula in present response to operate as you intend within your workbook (corresponding ranges are colour-coded with clear visual link between each)...
So to apply in your case, you'd need to replace shaded/boxed ranges/references in my proposal with those you're using (as indicated - i.e. replace by H4 with your $D95 etc,..."
JB: replace final 'FALSE' with an additional iferror(Aug,-July)
This concept is clearly delineated within screenshot above.
OP: "I tried and just got N/A"
As link in opening line provides evidence of two alternative solns. working error-free, presume 'n/a' result of incorrect application...
I would like to combine three different tables in Excel. I am struggling with the fact that the tables can vary in length.
For example:
What I would like to achieve is all the tables' data in one table without empty spaces. So first the two entries from the first table then the three entries from the second table and lastly the entry from the third table. But the amount of rows in each table can vary.
How can I do this dynamically so when the amount of entries in the tables change it can handle this? I'm using Mac with Office365. Thanks!
EDIT:
Output with Ron Rosenfeld's solution, the range of the list goes down from cell 5 - cell 103. Could this be reduced to 5 - 15?:
If you have Excel 2019 or Office 365, with the FILTERXML and TEXTJOIN functions, you can use:
=FILTERXML("<t><s>" & TEXTJOIN("</s><s>",TRUE,Table1,Table2, Table3) & "</s></t>","//s[.!=0]")
If those zero's are really blanks, you can omit [.!=0] from the xPath argument, but it won't hurt to leave it there
Edit:
With MAC versions of Office 365 that do not have the FILTERXML function, I believe the following will work:
=LET(
a,299,
x,IF(SEQUENCE(99,,0)=0,1,SEQUENCE(99,,0)*a),
y,TEXTJOIN(REPT(" ",a),TRUE,Table19,Table20,Table21),
z, TRIM(MID(y,x,a)),FILTER(z,(z<>"0")*(z<>""))
)
Note the a parameter in the above function
Because of how the splitting algorithm works, the sequence for each cell will not always start at the beginning of a string.
Hence, if there are enough letters in the various strings, the start number may eventually get offset enough to cause a split in the wrong location
One fix is to use an arbitrarily large number of space's to insert.
99 is frequently large enough, but not for this data set.
299 seems to be large enough for the data set as shown in your actual data.
I believe the minimum number should be the sum of the lengths of all the characters in the original tables (including the 0's) plus one (1). But not sure of this.
You can certainly adjust it as needed
If the number becomes too large, you could run into the 32,767 character limitation. If that happened, an error message would occur.
So, if you wanted to compute a, dynamically, you could try something like:
=LET(
a,SUM(LEN(Table19[Column1]),LEN(Table20[Column1]),LEN(Table21[Column1]))+1,
x,IF(SEQUENCE(99,,0)=0,1,SEQUENCE(99,,0)*a),
y,TEXTJOIN(REPT(" ",a),TRUE,Table19,Table20,Table21),
z, TRIM(MID(y,x,a)),FILTER(z,(z<>"0")*(z<>""))
)
but no guarantees.
Assuming the data is in A:C, and empty cell is blank (not 0).
In E1 put :
=IF(ROW()>COUNTA(A:C),"",
INDEX(A:C,
IF(ROW()<=COUNTA(A:A),ROW(),IF(ROW()<=COUNTA(A:B),ROW()-COUNTA(A:A),ROW()-COUNTA(A:B))),
IF(ROW()<=COUNTA(A:A),1,IF(ROW()<=COUNTA(A:B),2,3)))
)
Idea : use row() to guide in selection in index. counta() is used guide converting 'row()' to usable index numbers. Also make the output cell blank "" for row() > counta(a:c).
Please share if it works/not.
I am looking for a possibility to use VLOOKUP in combination with a dynamic formula (or a different solution if possible).
A simplified problem is provided in the image below. Based on a category the number of outlets in a room is calculated. The number of outlets can either be a fixed amount or based on the total area of a room which is provided in a separate column.
What is the best method to apply this to a (much larger) sample?
If "based on total area" is always a x per unitA, then enter it as a proportion, e.g.: 0.1a instead of 1 per 10 m^2, and use a formula that checks for the trailing 'a' and responds accordingly. e.g.:
=IF(RIGHT(VLOOKUP(B2,$F$2:$G$3,2,FALSE),1)="a",CEILING.MATH(SUBSTITUTE(VLOOKUP(B2,$F$2:$G$3,2,FALSE),"a","")*C2),VLOOKUP(B2,$F$2:$G$3,2,FALSE))
(I used "Ceiling" to get the integer value. Replace with Floor or Round as needed).
Probably easier from a formula writing (and readability) POV would be a separate column that holds the a (or rather: a "fixed/proportional" column) and key off of that, but the result is the same.
How do I apply following requirement in Saved Search criteria?
Filter all inventory items
Where min( {memberitem.quantityavailable} / {memberquantity} ) <> custitem_quantity
Note: custitem_quantity is a custom numeric field.
Note2: NetSuite is throwing error when I use min function in filters.
There is more than one issue here.
You have to be careful with custom numerics in Netsuite.
When your inner condition evaluates, it does not have the same type because it is fractional. At some point it has to be rounded and / or truncated internally. The other side of the expression would need to call a floor or ceiling function to remove everthing past the decimal.
Also, the min function evaluates after the <> conditional, which will be dependent upon whether your custom numeric is type compatible to begin with.
In the expression you provided us, it would have to be an exact match (and an exact type), and that is before you consider whether MIN gets to be evaluated.
Look at how the datatypes are cast and what columns you are processing because memberitem.quantityavailable may need a secondary index depending upon your dependencies and where the formula is being called. If this formula is being used over multiple products, it may not be logically consistent.
When I have similar items in inventory that I want to generate stats for I try to process it separately, even if I have to make a second pass.
What are you trying to isolate exactly - - I cannot think of a quantity-related situation where there would be a need to use division in this way - - please refer to the formula Mike Robbins listed above for a properly structured evaluation and see if it achieves the desired result.
If you post the rest of your code, I will help you resolve this.
The entire expression is not valid and will not evaluate due to the conditional shown, the MIN, nor the division. Index the count on the memberquantity if you are looking to sum over values. Otherwise, CountIF will work for quantities. MIN will only finds the lowest value in a given column, so SumIF appears to be what you are after. You can create a second expression which bounds the values you are searching for as a preliminary step.
I am new here, so please elaborate on what you are trying to accomplish so I can earn the bounty.
You may want to take into account null values as well to avoid errors or inconsistent data.
If you're using formula numeric, try this:
Formula(Numeric):
case when min((NVL({memberitem.quantityavailable},0) / NVL({memberquantity},0)) - (NVL{custitem_quantity},0)) then 1 else 0 end
'IS EQUAL TO' 1
I believe you can use the Formula Text or Formula Numeric Search Filter for that.
NOTE: I don't need a solution for the actual problem to be solved with Excel. I want to understand and discuss the behaviour. And I want to see, if other people can reproduce the situation and make them aware of it.
Situation is extremely simplified for debugging the problem.
I use Excel 2007 in an cooperate environment
In a calculation made on a two-week basis, I have to fill in numbers for the two-week interval that are valid a whole month. For example first two weeks of December I have to use value 12, second two weeks again, than first to weeks of January I have to use 1, second two weeks again.
Therefore I have a column for each two-week period with a field of current month (green area in screenshot). The values valid for the month are in a second table (red area). To retrieve the value for current period, I use a LOOKUP()call:
(A2): =LOOKUP(A1;$A$9:$H$9;$A$10:$H$10)
...
(P2): =LOOKUP(P1;$A$9:$H$9;$A$10:$H$10)
As you can see in the screenshot, the function goes havoc and retrieves false values.
For testing, I reproduced the situation with the international phonetic alphabet instead of month names. Therefore:
(A5): =LOOKUP(A4;$A$12:$H$12;$A$13:$H$13)
...
This time, the function works well. Therefore I guess, it has something to do with the name of months. Maybe they have some internal representation, despite the fact, the cell are formatted as "text".
I already tested vertical vectors instead of horizontals in the red area. They lead to the same situation.
NOTE:
I finally solved the original problem by using HLOOKUP() and VLOOKUP(). There I found another clue. Both show the same behaviour if [not_exact_match] is committed or set to true but work fine, if exact_match is enforced. So, how can Februar be an approximate match to Dezember?
See http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/excel-help/lookup-function-HP010342671.aspx
For the LOOKUP function to work correctly, the data being looked up must be sorted in ascending order.
This is not the case with the texts "Dezember", "Januar", "Februar", ...
If you would use real dates 01.12.2013, 01.01.2014, 01.02.2014, ... and format them as "MMMM", then it should work. Of course the lookup_value also has to be in that form.
Same problem with VLOOKUP and not exact match. http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/excel-help/vlookup-function-HP010343011.aspx
If range_lookup is either TRUE or is omitted, the values in the first column of table_array must be placed in ascending sort order; otherwise, VLOOKUP might not return the correct value.