Unlock a world of possibilities! Login now and discover the exclusive benefits awaiting you.
I have a need for a report to show invoice lines with values and show all the goods received numbers for each line.
I have a database table with Invoice lines with a financial value.
Each invoice line has a unique key of invoice number and position.
Each invoice line can have more than one Goods Received Number against it in a list
on another table with no unique key but they are linked by invoice number and position.
One invoice position could have 5 Goods Received numbers.
So if I load my invoice lines and my Goods Received table and link on on invoice number and invoice position I will get a problem.
The invoice line with a financial value will be displayed many times.
Imagine an invoice line for $100 with five Goods Received Numbers displayed on a sheet in a table object.
On my table object I will get 5 rows each for $100, each with a different Goods Received Number.
What I need is 1 line with $500 on the invoice line table and another table that lists the 5 Goods Received Numbers.
Can this be done? I suspect I am missing a concept somewhere.
Why does displaying the invoice position and Goods received data in one table object behave differently to displaying the invoice positions in one table object and the goods received table in another table object?
Do Qlikview tables objects de-duplicate on rows?
OK tables and Straight Tables do exclude duplicate rows on presentation.
I found this briefly described at http://qlikviewmaven.blogspot.se/2011/07/duplicate-rows-in-qlikview-table.html
So that explains the different behaviour when splitting the results into two table objects on the sheet.
However if I do any total expressions anywhere on the sheet against my invoice value, it would be to high
counting all occurrences of the invoice position value so that is not quite right either.
So I am kind of back where I started with a problem of a 1:M representation.
Sounds painful and complex.
Didn't see this before I responded to your prior post. I see you have helpfully described your theory as a solution.
Examining now.
