I'm creating a relation between two data tables A and B based on one column.
After creating the relation I'm able to see the matching rows in table A using the include matching rows option in filter panel, but when I select the exclude matching rows option then no filtering happens.
When excluding matching rows:
When including matching rows:
it's still not really clear what you're asking, but hopefully this bit from the manual will clear up your confusion:
When you have multiple data tables that are related to each other in your analysis, and the data tables do not include exactly the same rows, you may want to handle filtering in the related data tables in different ways, depending on whether you are interested in the filtered rows or the filtered out rows. To help show the difference between the three options available, we use an example with two related data tables, DT1 and DT2. Both DT1 and DT2 contain rows that are not available in the other data table (pink and yellow), but they also contain common rows (blue):
A = Rows in DT1 that are not available in DT2.
B = Rows in DT1 that are available in DT2, but have been filtered out.
C = Rows in DT1 that are available in DT2 and included in the currently filtered rows of DT2.
F = The filtered rows (rows remaining after filtering) in DT2.
When the filtering management for DT2 is specified (from the DT1 data table header) the different options will give the following results:
Include Filtered Rows Only
The first option will make all rows that are only present in DT1 disappear from the visualizations using DT1, since only the rows that are currently filtered in DT2 will be included. Hence, this option keeps only those rows that are present in both data tables (and have not been filtered out).
In the example above, this means that only the rows in C will remain after filtering in DT2.
Exclude Filtered Out Rows
The second option will remove those rows that have been filtered out from DT2 from all visualizations using DT1. Hence, this option keeps those rows that are filtered in DT2 as well as the additional rows from DT1.
In the example above, this means that A and C will remain after filtering in DT2.
Ignore Filtering
The third option is to ignore any filtering done in the related data table completely. This way, all rows that are available in the current data table will remain available.
In the example above, this means that A, B and C will all remain after filtering in DT2.
Related
I am having two tables, one table (table 1) below is main data, separated into many columns and blocks per 10 rows in one, as you can see A2:A11, A12:A21 and so on (many rows and columns) ... In Column A are unique numbers, but one number per block as a unique, and all other information in other columns can differ, sometimes will be more data sometimes not. The data is always same structured.
What I am looking is to have report / printable sheet where I will have all my columns on one sheet, but in a Column A2 for instance drop down list that will use all unique numbers from main data table and populate all matches on report page, same as it is on picture below. There are many columns that should work automatically when I choose something from "Number" drop down. The trick here is, there must be 10 rows per block also, I have organized it as it should be, but I can't figure out how to populate using functions. So, you can imagine clicking one drop down and getting those lists updated without scrolling endlessly through columns and rows on main data table...
Where I have a problem is that I am getting matches only for first rows but not whole rows (or all rows where matches are) ...
using this function:
=INDEX(Table1[Datum];SMALL(IF(Table1[Nummer]=Printable!$A$2;ROW(Table1[Nummer])-ROW(INDEX(Table1[Nummer];1;1))+1);1))
If someone can help me out, I would be happy!
Try below formula. After putting formula to cell drag down and across as needed. I have tested this formula in Excel2013 and with range (not as table). So, you have to adjust formula for table. I suggest you to first test the formula in single sheet like my screenshot and if it is successful then go for table in Report sheet.
=INDEX(INDEX(B:B,MATCH($G$2,$A:$A,0)):INDEX(B:B,MATCH($G$2,$A:$A,0)+9),ROW(1:1))
Excel for Mac doesn't support Power Pivot and thereby doesn't have distinct count feature.
What is the best workaround to get distinct count in such cases?
Sample Excel Columns:
Period Criteria1 Criteria2 Criteria3 Data
Sample Pivot table:
Different values in 'Period' will be pivot columns.
'Criteria1' can be a filter to pivot table.
Both 'Criteria2'&'Criteria3' columns can be pivot rows.
Now, count of 'Data' can be obtained directly through pivot.
How to obtain distinct count of 'Data' ?
Answer Options
Using 'Countif' on raw data - Cons: Very slow on large data.
Counting unique keys made by concatenating Criteria columns - Cons: Gets complex and takes more effort in large data with many criteria columns
Is there any better workarounds to obtain distinct count within pivot table(Excel for Mac) having filters/multiple criteria's?
I think I had a comparable problem and here's how I "fixed" it.
Add a column to the table named "DistinctValue" - or "Crit2:Crit3" doesn't matter
Add a formula, concatenating the values from all fields you have as a row in your pivot table: =[#Criteria2]&":"&[#Criteria3] -
depends a little bit on your values, but for me : as concatenator
works fine. Space or no character may also work.
Add a column "Distinct"
Add a formula: =IF(MATCH([#DistinctValue],Y:Y,0)=ROW([#DistinctValue]), 1, 0)
Use this row in the pivot as a value with SUM and name it "Count".
This gives you a 1 for every first row of distinct values in your data table which is used in your Pivot. The data rows used for the pivot table should have exactly one row with a 1 for each section of rows. If you sum it up, you exactly get the distinct count.
If you add a new row to the pivot, you need to add it to the formula in 2. to get distinct values again.
Edit: You probably have to exchange , with ; for other languages in the formulas when also translating the formula names to German for instance.
The following solution has a few steps, but the payoff is that it scales very nicely, because the formula is just as performant on large sets as on small ones, as opposed to lookup/match which get slower the larger the set is.
(1) Custom sort on the fields with the duplicate values. e.g.
"Email Address"
n.b. If you prefer to count a particular instance (i.e. the record with the latest creation date), set the sort so that those duplicates will appear first.
(2) Create a new column, Call it Unique Count or what have you. In that column use a formula that is 1 if the preceding value and current value are not equal. E.g. =IF(EXACT(A2,A3),0,1)
(3) Fill down.
(4) Pivot on this table. Now when you do Count/Sum, use the Unique Count.
I am currently comparing data from two different sources in an excel spreadsheet. My left table is missing a few entities and because the tables are sorted the same way. I have been simply adding rows to the first table to make the rows match up.
Ill use this image to describe what I need a little better:
Consider these two different tables in the same worksheet. I would like a row to be inserted automatically above ID-5 in the first table to make it align with ID-row 5 in the second table. I would also like to do the same thing for ID row 8.
Is there an automatic process I could evoke in order to add rows until the data matches up?
If the right-hand pair of columns is comprehensive (say starting in C1), you might put, in E1 copied down to suit:
=IFERROR(INDEX(B:B,MATCH(C1,A:A,0)),"")
This does not add or delete any rows but should match the left pair with the right pair. If the right pair is not comprehensive list of IDs then append one ID column to the other and delete duplicates on that column to create a complete list.
I need to compare 2 datatables. I'm attempting to compare the data in the tables but the column names and datatypes will not mathc as they are based on 2 different sources. Each datatable will have a column that is the id for the table so finding the associated row across tables will not be a problem. I'm looking for speed overall but I'm afraid I will have to do a column by column by row comparison. Can anyone share an effective method they may have used.
UPDATE: Should also have mentioned. The intent is to have a datatable that contains the data in dt1 that does not match dt2 so it can be bound to a grid for user action.
I have a report (rdlc) that has a data set that has row grouping based upon certain field values.
It is set up to appear as separate tables for each grouping.
I now have a requirement to display a column for only one of these groupings.
For example, if value = a then show a column in the grouped table.
If value <> a then do not display this column.
I have tried several visibility techniques but cannot get the column to show in only one grouping.
The closest I got was to show the column in the required grouping, but it left white space for the column within the other tables.
Has anyone successfully tried anything similar?
Thanks for any and all assistance!!!
A table in SSRS ( and many other systems) must have the same columns for every row, and the same rows for every column. You can merge some of these, but that won't accomplish what you want: changing the number of columns for only some rows of the table.
I would separate this into multiple tables. Use the filters property of the different tables(tablixes) to filter each table to only display the appropriate rows if you would like to keep your current dataset.