Unlock a world of possibilities! Login now and discover the exclusive benefits awaiting you.
Hi,
I have a Qlikview model that extracts data from an ERP system database via ODBC. However, the data returned was inconsistent with what was expected. So I isolated the query in question and created a new Qlikview model with only this query and no conversion or anything and just presented the returned values in a straight table, which I then exported to an Excel document to review.
What I found was that the exact same query in WinSQL directly querying the database gave a different result to the query in the load script of my QV model. There were records missing in the QV model. At first I thought maybe there was duplicates that QV merged somehow, but even when adding a DISTINCT in my WinSQL query, it is still the same.
The Qlikview version is 11.20.12904.0
Any ideas why this could be?
It's probably not the load which excludes duplicates else it's the UI object which always showed distinct values.
To track it I suggest that you add a record-id and if none exists to create ones with recno() and rowno() within the Qlik load (not within the SQL part else within a separate load or a preceding load). Within the UI add both record counter-fields in the object and you could see which records are really there.
I figured it out.
Apparently a straight table is only showing unique rows and not ALL rows, so therefore records were missing.
When I used a pivot table instead I got the correct results.
It's probably not the load which excludes duplicates else it's the UI object which always showed distinct values.
To track it I suggest that you add a record-id and if none exists to create ones with recno() and rowno() within the Qlik load (not within the SQL part else within a separate load or a preceding load). Within the UI add both record counter-fields in the object and you could see which records are really there.
I figured it out.
Apparently a straight table is only showing unique rows and not ALL rows, so therefore records were missing.
When I used a pivot table instead I got the correct results.