Unlock a world of possibilities! Login now and discover the exclusive benefits awaiting you.
I have created a master measure [Varer in dp] like:
{$<RegistrationOperation = {'1'},DateSecond ={">=$(=Date(vMinSelectedDate , 'DD/MM/YYYY')) <=$(=Date(vMaxSelectedDate , 'DD/MM/YYYY'))"} >}sum(WeightNet)
If i reuse this master measure with an additional set modifier it does not respond, like:
{$<GroupNo = {'9900','29900'}>} [Varer in dp]
This expression gives me the same result as if I use [Varer in dp] only.
If I instead use the formula I used for creating the master measure and and the set modifier its working, like:
{$<GroupNo = {'9900','29900'}, RegistrationOperation = {'1'},DateSecond ={">=$(=Date(vMinSelectedDate , 'DD/MM/YYYY')) <=$(=Date(vMaxSelectedDate , 'DD/MM/YYYY'))"} >}sum(WeightNet)
Is it not possible to alter the scope in master measure with an additional set modifier?
Hi,
you need to remove the set identifier $ from the master measure. If the inner set expression contains a set identifier, it overrides the context defined in the outer set expression https://help.qlik.com/en-US/sense/November2024/Subsystems/Hub/Content/Sense_Hub/ChartFunctions/SetAn....
Hi,
It should be possible. I use it on a regular basis. Are you on one old on-prem version (< 08/2022) ?
If I refer to this post, it seems that it is possible to apply a Set Analysis over a master measure since August 2022 :
Regards
Hi SRA
Thanks for you input!
We are running Qlik Cloud, but I believe the same functionality should apply. I am quite sure we have used this many times.
Can there maybe be something in my data model causing this? The additional set modifier GropuNo is in a connected table (by a link table) and not in the same table as the other values?
Hi,
you need to remove the set identifier $ from the master measure. If the inner set expression contains a set identifier, it overrides the context defined in the outer set expression https://help.qlik.com/en-US/sense/November2024/Subsystems/Hub/Content/Sense_Hub/ChartFunctions/SetAn....
I just did a test... and was able to reproduce this behaviour.
It seems the $ used in the set analysis you have in the measure is causing this.
Thank you!!