Pareto-analysis across a series of barcharts

[datanibbler]

Hi,

I already have a series of barcharts rgd. different fields, but now I want to upgrade these to enable Pareto-analysis on any of those fields.

- I have already implemented a listbox and a system of variables where the user can tick which fields he/she wants to analyze;

- Each one of these charts has two formulas:

     - A count of the items (boxes) on a specific dimensional "point"

     - The rel. percentage of the expression on that one dimensional "point" relative to the total

- Now I have set the limit of each chart to 80% of the rel. percentage (which I have moved to the top so it is now the 1st formula)

- Also, I have sorted my chart by that same rel. percentage in descending order.

Just now I have added another expression, a line displaying the cumulative relative percentage - the Lorentz curve associated with that analysis.

<=> That should, because of the limitation of the chart, go up to 80% only and not to 100% as it does. This confuses me.

Why is that so?

Thanks a lot!

Best regards,

DataNibbler

[swuehl]

That's hard to answer (without knowing any details of the chart expressions / settings you've used).

As far as I remember we had some discussions before - still I don't see too much detailed information in your post

(at best a small sample QVW attached).

It looks like you are calculating quantities and percentages, so I assume you are using two axis. Have you set a limit on both axis?

[avinashelite]

swuehl‌ mentioned , attaching a sample app you help us to understand more

[datanibbler]

Hi swuehl,

yes, we did have some discussions before - not about this in particular, but about what developers prefer to read - that's a matter of opinion. I am a fan of detailed documentation, in my scripts the ratio between the nr. of lines of code and the lines of documentation is nearly 1:1.

On the opposite, I hate looking at a piece of code without any documentation and trying to figure out what the author of the code tried to do and why.

Okay, now I'm going on lunch_break and afterwards I'll put together a small sample app with a chart similar to the one I have and try to illustrate just what I want to do.

Best regards,

DataNibbler

[datanibbler]

Hi,

limiting the secondary axis to 80% is definitely not the way to go, I just tried it. That just has the effect that the line (secondary axis) leaves the charting_area (at the top) at approx. the 3rd or 4th unit of my dimension.

What I want to see is all the units along my dimension up to 80% of the expression (the cumulative relative percentage of turnover).

Moreover, those should be sorted desc. by the relative percentage.

The Lorentz curve resulting from this should be nice and smooth, the way it is known, and end at the top right corner.

In other words (I think this is the essence of it, anyway) I want the line I have on the secondary axis to consider the limitation I have put on the dimension on the "limits" tab of the dialog. Currently, I think what the line shows is the cumulative_relative_percentage of the 80% that I have set as a limit for the dimension.

=> Thus, where that line hits 100%, that is actually the 80% of the total that I have set.

<=> What I'd like is, that should read 80%, the way I have set it up on the other tab.

Best regards,

DataNibbler

P.S.: I'm not sure that limitation works at all - when I remove it, what I see seems to remain exactly the same.

[datanibbler · Accepted solution]

Hi,

I think I'll close this. I just leave out the general limitation on the dimension and it looks quite ok. Now the Lorentz curve goes up to 100% of course (like it is now supposed to), but with the help of some grid_lines on that expression, one can nicely drag_select all the items that make up 80% of the total.

With a selection made, the line gets a bit out of sync with the bars because it seems that the line is displayed inside the charting_area with a buffer of some few mm to the left and right while the bars do not have any buffer - thus the first unit for the line is almost above the second bar instead of the first - but I guess that is some internal feature.

Best regards,

DataNibbler