Why does my MIN value from an AGGR return a different result compared to the table result?

[jblomqvist]

Hi all,

For the Min value I get 102365... as a number when the number expected is 1187,991 that you can see in the last expression of the RangeSum column.

Anyone know why this is?

In the example 2 I get a perfectly correct output as Min so I am not sure why the difference in result for example 1.

Any help please?

[sunny_talwar]

Can you share a qvw where we can see this behavior?

[Gysbert_Wassenaar · Accepted solution]

Because of the load order of your Month field. Apr is probably the first month encountered in your source data.

[jblomqvist]

Hi Gysbert I see your point because April contains that exact number if I do Sum(Sales), but should it not still return 1187,991 because it is the minimum value from my rangesum expression?

Maybe I do not understand something about this.

[swuehl]

That's only the minimum number if you order your dimension in chronological order, as shown in the chart.

Try sorting the dimension in load order (sort tab), like the aggr() function will sort its dimension values.

The aggr() function will not necessarily use the same dimension sort order as your chart!

[jblomqvist]

Thank you I understand now and changed the order of Months and it works.

Very good lesson.