Unlock a world of possibilities! Login now and discover the exclusive benefits awaiting you.
I'm trying to create a ranking based of sales. I used the function rowno() but thats not the right one. Goal is to count 1to N based off sales.
Thanks,
So even if you have five salespeople that all had exactly $100,000 in sales, you do NOT want them ranked the same??? What distinguishes them, then? Why is Bob ranked #27, but Barbara ranked #31, even though they had the same sales? I don't think you want the rank randomly assigned. Surely it's based on something. That or you SHOULD use the same rank for the same dollar figure.
Can you explain what it was about rowno() that you didn't like? Assuming you sorted by sum([Sales Amount]) in descending order, then rowno() would seem to be similar to the rank, just with the rank assigned by your next sort criteria when salespeople have the same sames. Again, I don't think that's what you should do, but it seems like what you're asking for. Was it that if you then sorted some other way, the "rank" got all messed up? You could always disallow interactive sorting.
Solved: rank( sum( [Sales Amount] ))
I take that back, it gives the same rank for similar dollar figures ..
Any idea how to just count a row in a table? 1-n?
So even if you have five salespeople that all had exactly $100,000 in sales, you do NOT want them ranked the same??? What distinguishes them, then? Why is Bob ranked #27, but Barbara ranked #31, even though they had the same sales? I don't think you want the rank randomly assigned. Surely it's based on something. That or you SHOULD use the same rank for the same dollar figure.
Can you explain what it was about rowno() that you didn't like? Assuming you sorted by sum([Sales Amount]) in descending order, then rowno() would seem to be similar to the rank, just with the rank assigned by your next sort criteria when salespeople have the same sames. Again, I don't think that's what you should do, but it seems like what you're asking for. Was it that if you then sorted some other way, the "rank" got all messed up? You could always disallow interactive sorting.
Great point, I over looked that.
Thanks!