Section Access Not behaving as Expected

[Anonymous]

In desktop version 11, in the help for section access, copy their code and make one change (besides their annoying typos - 'RechNo' and 'A') change autogenerage 3 to 4.  see below

section access;

load * inline [

ACCESS, USERID,REDUCTION, OMIT

ADMIN, ADMIN,*,

USER, A,1

USER, B, 2,NUM

USER, C, 3, ALPHA

];

section application;

T1:

load *,

NUM AS REDUCTION;

load

Chr( RecNo()+ord('A')-1) AS ALPHA,

RecNo() AS NUM

AUTOGENERATE 4;

Be sure to follow their instructions and "In order for this procedure to take place, the option Initial Data Reduction Based on Section Access on the Document Properties: Opening page must be selected." And make sure you close qlikview in order to enter a different user's name. 

Type closing and signing into the document at 'admin'

The problem I'm seeing is that in Section Access a REDUCTION value of * for Admin should show all values in the REDUCTION field from the T1 table.  But it only displays A, B, and C.  Where's 'D'?! What is the problem here?  Is this a bug?  How can I display all values of REDUCTION for an admin or any other user while still enforcing 'reduction' for others. 

[swuehl · Accepted solution]

Yes, this is really what could be called a pitfall:

The Helps says about the use of the wildcard '*':

A wildcard, i. e. *, is interpreted as all (listed) values of this field, i.e. a value listed elsewhere in this table. If used in one of the system fields (USERID, PASSWORD, NTNAME or SERIAL) in a table loaded in the access section of the script, it is interpreted as all (also not listed) possible values of this field.

And the introduction to section access (http://community.qlik.com/docs/DOC-1853 )

tries to explain more clearly:

A common misconception in section access is the use of “*” (star) in section access.

“Star” means “all listed values” not all values for the field. This will be explained in

detail in the script examples.

So ADMIN only has access to 1,2,3 because those are the listed values in that table.

Not very logical and I don't know why they have implemented like that.

But it's a feature, not a bug 😉

[Anonymous]

It's defnitely misleading.  The * therefore, is fairly useless if trying to do data reduction in any large database.  I'll just need to create and reference a table that has a list of all possible values.  Thank you.