<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Numerical problem in QlikView</title>
    <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/Numerical-problem/m-p/520456#M690274</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;to be more precise:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- The max() function should, per employee, filter out all but one records - only the record with the largest numerical PU - the smallest unit - should remain.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;lt;=&amp;gt; It is of course possible that the superordinate area is not filtered out if there are employees not assigned to the smaller areas below, but only to that superordinate area - in which dase that PU would be the one with the largest numerical value&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;lt;=&amp;gt; In the area I looked at yesterday, that is not the case - as I said, I have one app where it works perfectly and that I can use as reference plus I am in steady contact with HR about this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Mysteries in the dark...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2013 06:51:33 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>datanibbler</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-10-25T06:51:33Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Numerical problem</title>
      <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/Numerical-problem/m-p/520454#M690272</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I will try to formulate my problem precisely enough so someone can hopefully help me. Putting together some dummy_data would require time that I haven't actually got, but I'd do it if necessary, of course.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- I have personell data: Every emp has a Nr. and a "personell_unit" he belongs to.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Due to my SQL_SELECT out of two DB tables, each employee ends up with n records:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; - one where he belongs to "PU" 1 - this branch (level_1/ top-level)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; - one where he belongs to PU 12 - this plant (there are two plants/halls to this branch)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; - one where he belongs to PU 125 - one area in the plant&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; - one where he belongs to PU 1253 - early_shift (level_4)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- There might even be more.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- In my script, I actually have a max() fct. at one point, so this emp should remain with only one record as belonging to PU 1253.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;=&amp;gt; To enable managers to see the combined figures for both shifts of one area, I have generated a mapping table where all PU-values are assigned the same "bigger_area", so when the user selects that, he sees all PU-codes assigned to that.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;lt;=&amp;gt; My problem is now such that when I select one plant, then I can select any of the "bigger_areas" in that plant - and in that list, there is one PU-value (say, 125, to stick with that example) - that should not be there because the max() function should actually throw it out and keep only PU 1253&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The numbers of course are different, this was just an example for the structure of my problem.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will attach a txt file with the two LOAD statements where my problem lies.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks a lot!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;DataNibbler&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;P.S.: Strangely, when I look at the nr_of_rows, the table in the second LOAD statement does get reduced by a few records, so something is happening - but I'm not sure what...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:20:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/Numerical-problem/m-p/520454#M690272</guid>
      <dc:creator>datanibbler</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-24T12:20:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Numerical problem</title>
      <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/Numerical-problem/m-p/520455#M690273</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;in the individual apps, I can just as well circumvent the problem by just taking those "superordinate" areas out of the filtering_inline_table, there is a comment in the base list to know where to do that.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'd still like to know why - it works perfectly in precisely this way (well, probably not...) in the app I built for HR.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;There I get 4 emps in that area - all in either shift_1 or shift_2 &amp;lt;=&amp;gt; in my new app (a template from where this will be propagated into all other apps) there are 11 - shift_1, shift_2, the same number in the superordinate_area plus some more in areas I don't display - and which I never had in my filtering_table...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Btw, what is this big white bunny with the tophat doing there...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;DataNibbler&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:35:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/Numerical-problem/m-p/520455#M690273</guid>
      <dc:creator>datanibbler</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-24T13:35:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Numerical problem</title>
      <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/Numerical-problem/m-p/520456#M690274</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;to be more precise:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- The max() function should, per employee, filter out all but one records - only the record with the largest numerical PU - the smallest unit - should remain.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;lt;=&amp;gt; It is of course possible that the superordinate area is not filtered out if there are employees not assigned to the smaller areas below, but only to that superordinate area - in which dase that PU would be the one with the largest numerical value&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;lt;=&amp;gt; In the area I looked at yesterday, that is not the case - as I said, I have one app where it works perfectly and that I can use as reference plus I am in steady contact with HR about this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Mysteries in the dark...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2013 06:51:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/Numerical-problem/m-p/520456#M690274</guid>
      <dc:creator>datanibbler</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-25T06:51:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Numerical problem</title>
      <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/Numerical-problem/m-p/520457#M690275</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Oh my - now I have found the correct way to do it - in one of two possible cases anyway (where there are employees assigned only to the superordinate area, so I don't have to throw out anything) - without knowing what I had done wrong in the first place... very annoying that is... Not understanding errors condemns one to make the same mistake again eventually...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I still have to test the other case.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:37:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/Numerical-problem/m-p/520457#M690275</guid>
      <dc:creator>datanibbler</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-25T08:37:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

