Skip to main content
Announcements
Qlik Introduces a New Era of Visualization! READ ALL ABOUT IT
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Vegar
MVP
MVP

Preceding load on peek() tables

I  notice strange behaviour when performing a preceding load on a table generated using the peek function? Can anyone explain what's happening and why? @hic do you have an explanation?  

Example 1. Not using preceding load, the peek works at intended. On the Version 3 ValidTo I get the version 4 ValidFrom figures.  

image.png


Data: LOAD
rowno() as Id,
* inline [ Version, Location, ValidFrom 3, Uppsala, 2019-04-18 3, Storvreta, 2019-04-18 3, Tierp, 2019-04-18 4, Uppsala, 2019-04-19 4, Storvreta, 2019-04-19 4, Tierp, 2019-04-19 ]; PeekTable: LOAD Id, Version, Location, ValidFrom, If(peek('Location')=Location, peek('ValidFrom'), '9999-12-31') as ValidTo Resident Data ORDER BY Location, Version desc; DROP TABLE Data;

 

 

Example 2. Adding preceding load 

But if I add a preceeding load to my my peek table something strange happens.... all ValidTo ends up as 9999-12-31.Output using preceding load on peekOutput using preceding load on peek

Data:
LOAD 
rowno() as Id,
* inline [ Version, Location, ValidFrom 3, Uppsala, 2019-04-18 3, Storvreta, 2019-04-18 3, Tierp, 2019-04-18 4, Uppsala, 2019-04-19 4, Storvreta, 2019-04-19 4, Tierp, 2019-04-19 ]; Peek: LOAD Id, ValidTo ; PeekTable: LOAD Id, Version, Location, ValidFrom, If(peek('Location')=Location, peek('ValidFrom'), '9999-12-31') as ValidTo Resident
Data ORDER BY Location, Version desc; //DROP TABLE Data;

 

 

My workaround

Data:
LOAD rowno() as Id, * inline [
Version, Location,	ValidFrom
3,	Uppsala,	2019-04-18
3,	Storvreta,	2019-04-18
3,	Tierp,		2019-04-18
4,	Uppsala,	2019-04-19
4,	Storvreta,	2019-04-19
4,	Tierp,		2019-04-19
];

PeekTable:
LOAD
  Id, 
  Version,	
  Location,	
  ValidFrom,
  If(peek('Location')=Location, peek('ValidFrom'), '9999-12-31') as ValidTo
Resident Data
ORDER BY Location, Version desc;

Final:
LOAD 
  Id, 
  ValidTo
Resident PeekTable
;
DROP Table PeekTable;
Labels (5)
1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
Gysbert_Wassenaar

Peek looks into the target table. An intermediate table that forwards the data to the preceding load is not the target table. That will be the result of the preceding load. The field you're trying to peek into isn't in the target table. Arguably a bug. But it's hard to expect peek to know what fields do or don't exist x steps after peek executes.

talk is cheap, supply exceeds demand

View solution in original post

19 Replies
sunny_talwar

I have noticed this behavior where if you are using Peek on a field, you cannot really remove the field you are peeking on in your preceding load.... another work around this is 

Data:
LOAD 
  rowno() as Id, 
  * inline [
Version, Location,	ValidFrom
3,	Uppsala,	2019-04-18
3,	Storvreta,	2019-04-18
3,	Tierp,		2019-04-18
4,	Uppsala,	2019-04-19
4,	Storvreta,	2019-04-19
4,	Tierp,		2019-04-19
];

Peek:
LOAD 
  Id, 
  ValidTo,
  ValidFrom,
  Location
;
PeekTable:
LOAD
  Id, 
  Version,	
  Location,	
  ValidFrom,
  If(peek('Location')=Location, peek('ValidFrom'), '9999-12-31') as ValidTo
Resident 
  Data
ORDER BY Location, Version desc;

DROP Field ValidFrom, Location From PeekTable;

Since you are doing peek on Location and ValidFrom, bring them in your preceding load, but then drop the field using DROP Field statement.

marcus_sommer

It's a specially behaviour of peek() and not really related to the preceeding load else to the fact that the fields Location and ValidFrom from the peek() aren't included within the preceeding - just add them within the preceeding too or remove them from the start-load and it will work respectively fail, too.

I think the reason for it is that the interrecord-functions needs these fields directly within the loading table and there they aren't loaded. In this way they are different to other "normal" functions like: if(F1 = 'A', F2, F3) as F4 which could be evaluated on the source-level.

- Marcus

Gysbert_Wassenaar

Peek looks into the target table. An intermediate table that forwards the data to the preceding load is not the target table. That will be the result of the preceding load. The field you're trying to peek into isn't in the target table. Arguably a bug. But it's hard to expect peek to know what fields do or don't exist x steps after peek executes.

talk is cheap, supply exceeds demand
Vegar
MVP
MVP
Author

Thank you for your imputs @sunny_talwar, @marcus_sommer  and @Gysbert_Wassenaar . They where all helpful.

 

@Gysbert_Wassenaar wrote:
Peek looks into the target table. An intermediate table that forwards the data to the preceding load is not the target table. That will be the result of the preceding load. The field you're trying to peek into isn't in the target table. 

Your answer makes me adjust how I look at the consept preceding loads. I've always imagined the  first load to close before going up to the next preceding load, but after reading your comment  I get the idea that the entries are of moving up the preceding load ladder row by row. 

This is also kind of explains the problem with rowno() in preceding loads.

 

 

somacdc
Contributor III
Contributor III

I have been using Preceding load for my following desire result.

Customer_NameCustomer_PlaceCustomer_SalesCustomer_AggrTotal_Purchaseresult
EricBoston450050005000-0=5000
JohnKreta50095005000-950=4050
RickTexas32082004050-820=3230
MartinOhio25057003230-570=2660
MarcusKensas14039002660-390=2270
LisaBoston65979902270-799=1471
GeoKreta370102901471-1029=230
MontiKreta2205900230-590=0
CarlKensas22040000-400=0
DanielTexas18040000-400=0
AdiKensas840106000-1060=0
BegoliOhio184100-841=0
BruceTexas45645700-457=0
HillaryKreta6986744200-7442=0

 

Please check my following techniques of result column and correct the same.

Operations:
Load
Customer_Name,
Customer_Place,
Customer_Sales,
Total_Purchase,
Rangesum(Total_Purchase - Peek(Customer_Aggr)) as result,
Rangesum( Customer_Sales + Peek(Customer_Sales,-1)) AS Customer_Aggr;

//*1.* Here I'm creating my data
//ExampleData:
Load * Inline [
Customer_ID, Customer_Name, Customer_Place, Customer_Sales, Total_Purchase
1,Eric,Boston,450,1000
2,John,Kreta,500,0
3,Rick,Texas,320,0
4,Martin,Ohio,250,0
5,Marcus,Kensas,140,0
6,Lisa,Boston,659,0
7,Geo,Kreta,370,0
8,Monti,Kreta,220,0
9,Daniel,Texas,180,0
10,Carl,Kensas,220,0
11,Adi,Kensas,840,0
12,Begoli,Ohio,1,0
13,Bruce,Texas,456,0
14,Hillary,Kreta,6986,0];

////*3.* Finally, I'm trying to safe the table temporarilly and order by Customer_Aggr
NoConcatenate
OrderAttemp:
LOAD * Resident Operations Order By Customer_Aggr;


DROP Table Operations;

sunny_talwar

Total purchase for Eric changed from 1000 in the inline table to 5000 in your table? Is that a typo, or is that some kind of logic?

somacdc
Contributor III
Contributor III

ohh. Sorry. Please consider 5000 in the inline table

sunny_talwar

Try this

Operations:
LOAD Customer_ID,
	 Customer_Name,
	 Customer_Place,
	 Customer_Sales,
	 Total_Purchase,
	 Rangesum(Customer_Sales + Peek(Customer_Sales,-1)) AS Customer_Aggr,
	 RangeMax(RangeSum(Alt(Peek('result'), Total_Purchase), -Rangesum(Customer_Sales + Peek(Customer_Sales,-1))), 0) as result;
LOAD * INLINE [
    Customer_ID, Customer_Name, Customer_Place, Customer_Sales, Total_Purchase
    1, Eric, Boston, 450, 5000
    2, John, Kreta, 500, 0
    3, Rick, Texas, 320, 0
    4, Martin, Ohio, 250, 0
    5, Marcus, Kensas, 140, 0
    6, Lisa, Boston, 659, 0
    7, Geo, Kreta, 370, 0
    8, Monti, Kreta, 220, 0
    9, Daniel, Texas, 180, 0
    10, Carl, Kensas, 220, 0
    11, Adi, Kensas, 840, 0
    12, Begoli, Ohio, 1, 0
    13, Bruce, Texas, 456, 0
    14, Hillary, Kreta, 6986, 0
];
somacdc
Contributor III
Contributor III

 

Thanks for your kind response.

Now, I'm going to slightly change the data for my following desire result.

Customer_SlabCustomer_NameCustomer_Account_noCustomer_SalesTotal_Purchaseresult
7EricBoston45050005000-450=4550
6EricBoston50004550-500=4050
5EricBoston32003730
4EricBoston25003480
3EricBoston14003340
2EricBoston65902681
1EricBoston37002311
7MontiKreta22025002500-220=2280
6MontiKreta22002280-220=2060
5MontiKreta18002060-180=1880
4MontiKreta84001040
3MontiKreta101039
2MontiKreta4560583
1MontiKreta69860583-6986=0

 

Please find the attached qvw, which loop is not provide the correct result.

Operations:
LOAD Customer_Slab,
Customer_Name,
Customer_Account_no,
Customer_Sales,
Total_Purchase;

LOAD * INLINE [
Customer_Slab, Customer_Name, Customer_Account_no, Customer_Sales, Total_Purchase,ZERO_COLUM
7, Eric, Boston, 450, 5000,0
6, Eric, Boston, 500, 0,0
5, Eric, Boston, 320, 0,0
4, Eric, Boston, 250, 0,0
3, Eric, Boston, 140, 0,0
2, Eric, Boston, 659, 0,0
1, Eric, Boston, 370, 0,0
7, Monti, Kreta, 220, 2500,0
6, Monti, Kreta, 180, 0,0
5, Monti, Kreta, 220, 0,0
4, Monti, Kreta, 840, 0,0
3, Monti, Kreta, 1, 0,0
2, Monti, Kreta, 456, 0,0
1, Monti, Kreta, 6986, 0,0
];
//-----Store into qvd
Store Operations into [QVDS\Operations.qvd] (qvd);


DATA:
LOAD MAX(Customer_Slab) AS MAX_SLAB,
SUM(Total_Purchase) AS SUM_Total_Purchase,
Customer_Name,
Customer_Account_no
Resident Operations
Group By Customer_Name,
Customer_Account_no;

DROP Table Operations;

FOR_LOOP_DATA:
LOAD Customer_Name &'-'& Customer_Account_no &'-'& SUM_Total_Purchase &'-'& MAX_SLAB AS CONDITIONS_IDS
Resident DATA;

DROP Table DATA;

FOR EACH vCONDITIONS_IDS IN FieldValueList('CONDITIONS_IDS')

LET vCustomer_Name = subfield('$(vCONDITIONS_IDS)','-',1);
LET vACCOUNT_NUMBER = subfield('$(vCONDITIONS_IDS)','-',2);
LET vTotal_Purchase = subfield('$(vCONDITIONS_IDS)','-',3);
LET vMAX_SLAB = subfield('$(vCONDITIONS_IDS)','-',4);

TOTAL_CASH_BALANCE:
NoConcatenate
LOAD Customer_Name,
Customer_Account_no,
Customer_Sales,
Customer_Slab,
If(Customer_Slab = '$(vMAX_SLAB)', '$(vTotal_Purchase)', 0) AS Total_Purchase,

(Customer_Slab & Customer_Name & Customer_Account_no) AS ORDER
FROM [QVDS\Operations.qvd] (qvd)
WHERE Customer_Name = '$(vCustomer_Name)'
AND Customer_Account_no = '$(vACCOUNT_NUMBER)';


FINAL_OUTPUT:
LOAD Customer_Slab,
Customer_Name,
Customer_Account_no,
Customer_Sales,
Total_Purchase,
RangeMax(RangeSum(Alt(Peek('result'), Total_Purchase), -Rangesum(Customer_Sales)), 0) as result,

IF( (RangeMax(RangeSum(Alt(Peek('result'), Total_Purchase), -Rangesum(Customer_Sales)), 0))>= Customer_Sales, (RangeMax(RangeSum(Alt(Peek('result'), Total_Purchase), -Rangesum(Customer_Sales)), 0)) - Customer_Sales ) AS OUTPUT;;

LOAD Customer_Slab,
Customer_Name,
Customer_Account_no,
Customer_Sales,
Total_Purchase
Resident TOTAL_CASH_BALANCE
Order By ORDER desc;

NEXT vCONDITIONS_IDS


DROP Table FOR_LOOP_DATA;