Skip to main content
Announcements
Customer Spotlight: Discover what’s possible with embedded analytics Oct. 16 at 10:00 AM ET: REGISTER NOW
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Not applicable

Complex data reduction (for me anyway)

Hi guys,

I have 2 tables which have been concatenated as follows

Table1:

Month, Value, UNIT

1,100,A

2,200,B

3,300,C

Table2:

Month, ValueA, X_UNIT

1,100,A

2,200,B

3,300,C

The resulting concatenated table looks something like this

Month, Value, UNIT, ValueA, X_UNIT

1,100,A-,-

2,200,B,-

3,300,C,-

1,-,-,100,A

2,-,-,200,B

3,-,-,300,C

Now, I am trying to reduce data for each user by UNIT only, NOT by X_UNIT. The output that I am trying to get at is:-

If a user who belongs to UNIT A logs in, he/she should see:

Month, Value, UNIT, ValueA, X_UNIT

1,100,A-,-

1,-,-,100,A

2,-,-,200,B

3,-,-,300,C

Is this possible?

Right now, if I reduce by UNIT, all data under X_UNIT is not available to the user.

Any help would be appreciated

1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
pover
Luminary Alumni
Luminary Alumni

Following your example the Value 'A' needs to be explicitly defined for every row that you want the user to see so you need the rows to be:

1,100,A,-,-
1,-,A,100,A
2,-,A,200,B
3,-,A,300,C

You could do a join of the 2 tables so that A,B and C would be defined for every value in Table 2, but this might have the heavy cost or increasing drastically the size of the table.

I wonder if you could just link Table 1 and Table 2 by Month and as long as value A is related to all the months you are going to still see all the values of Table 2. How does that sound?

Regards.

View solution in original post

1 Reply
pover
Luminary Alumni
Luminary Alumni

Following your example the Value 'A' needs to be explicitly defined for every row that you want the user to see so you need the rows to be:

1,100,A,-,-
1,-,A,100,A
2,-,A,200,B
3,-,A,300,C

You could do a join of the 2 tables so that A,B and C would be defined for every value in Table 2, but this might have the heavy cost or increasing drastically the size of the table.

I wonder if you could just link Table 1 and Table 2 by Month and as long as value A is related to all the months you are going to still see all the values of Table 2. How does that sound?

Regards.