Skip to main content
Document boards are being consolidated, this board no longer allows NEW documents READ MORE

Ignore all selections except some specific fields using Set Analysis

Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Not applicable

Ignore all selections except some specific fields using Set Analysis


As far as I was designing apps for QV - I've found a great need in some charts to ignore all possible selections except some specific fields.

Exploring possible ways to do so - the first my decision was to use dollar-sign expression inside my Set Analysis which could make an exception like next:
(Let's imagine that in my scheme there are fields [Stock], [Manager], [Date], [City], [Client] and [Amount])

sum({1<[Stock]={'Stock 1','Stock 3'}>} Amount)

If I selected only 'Stock 1' and 'Stock 3' in field [Stock] - and this way has shown it's profit - you can get it using this expression:

sum({1<[Stock]=$(=if(GetSelectedCount([Stock], true( ))>0,'{' & chr(39) & GetFieldSelections([Stock],chr(39) & ',' & chr(39),GetSelectedCount([Stock], true( ))) & chr(39) & '}', ''))>} Amount)

If you need two, three, or more fields - you can simply add such code for every field into Set Analysis:

sum({1<[Stock]=$(=if(GetSelectedCount([Stock], true( ))>0,'{' & chr(39) & GetFieldSelections([Stock],chr(39) & ',' & chr(39),GetSelectedCount([Stock], true( ))) & chr(39) & '}', '')),[Manager]=$(=if(GetSelectedCount([Manager], true( ))>0,'{' & chr(39) & GetFieldSelections([Manager],chr(39) & ',' & chr(39),GetSelectedCount([Manager], true( ))) & chr(39) & '}', ''))>} Amount)

But what if you have a field containing hundreds of records? Can you imagine what will be the length of your expression? That's why I started to discover another way to do that. I've thought - what if I use not "1" Set, but "$" Set in my expression and write in it all the fields that must be ignored, something like that:

sum({$<[Date]=,[City]=,[Client]=,[Amount]=>} Amount)

So, using such expression - I get that all the fields except for [Stock] and [Manager] are ignored, but how car I make it automatic? Sure using our lovely dollar-sign expressions and system field $Field:

sum({$<[$(=Concat({1<$Field-={'Stock','Manager'}>}distinct $Field,']=,[')&']=')>} Amount)

where inside the set analysis of Concat function you can insert fields that you are interested in (by the way - there you can insert even tables using system field $Table and others).

Labels (1)
Champion III
Champion III
Clever. I'll need to remember that for cases such as ignoring all date fields from the calendar except the one(s) I'm actually doing set analysis on.
Not applicable

I think I don't understand the last expression...

How could I use this to get this setup:

I have a chart (graph) with a dimension lets say Category and Date (MMM-YYYY). What I'm trying to do is limit the Date-selectionbox to 1 selectable value that represents 1 month of 1 year. The graph then needs to show the selected month together with 3 previous months. As measure lets say I just want to count the A-values so something like Sum(if(Value='A',1,0)).

I was trying to make this setup by using a set expression

     Sum( { 1 < Date={ " >=$(=AddMonths(Date,-3)) <$(=AddMonths(Date,1)) " } > } if(Value='A',1,0) )

The Graph works for the date, it show only the period that I need. But when I make a subselection of Categories, it keeps showing the full result, so all possible Categories.

Any ideas?

Thanks in advance !

Not applicable

If you need a graph to react only on selections in fields Date and Category - you should use expression like:

sum({$<$(=Concat({1<$Field-={'Date','Category'}>}distinct '['&$Field&']=',','))>} if(Value='A',1,0))

also if you need to select some Dates and have possibility to select ranges inside this range of dates - I'll advise you to add into Set Analisys union with correct modified "1" Set^

sum({$<$(=Concat({1<$Field-={'Date','Category'}>}distinct '['&$Field&']=',','))>*1<Date={">=$(=AddMonths(Date,-3)) <$(=AddMonths(Date,1))"}>} if(Value='A',1,0))

and if you need to have static range of dates independent to your selection:

sum({$<$(=Concat({1<$Field-={'Category'}>}distinct '['&$Field&']=',','))>*1<Date={">=$(=AddMonths(Date,-3)) <$(=AddMonths(Date,1))"}>} if(Value='A',1,0))

Not applicable

Great post! I just used this for a use case where I needed to ignore all of the fields in a table and used the $Table system field. Using your example it would be:

sum({$<[$(=Concat({1<$Table={'Table1'}>}distinct $Field,']=,[')&']=')>} Amount)

Not applicable

I was looking for a solution for this problem too. I found this post also very handy:

As far as I can see, it is another solution for the same problem.

Master II
Master II


Not applicable

Very useful! Also combinations are possible:

count({<$(=concat({<$Table-={"ADDRESS"}, $Field-={"CUSTOMER*"}>} '[' & $Field & ']=',','))>} ID)

Partner - Specialist
Partner - Specialist

This is a really, really useful.

Partner - Specialist
Partner - Specialist

Thanks to your wonderful posting I have been able to put together the following "ratio" - as I select a year/month combination the numbers that are coming up are perfect. As I select my month/year combo (both these are in Calendar table) the figures Min(DateNo) and Max(DateNo) represent the boundaries of the month selected (1/11/2013 and 30/11/2013 for example in the case of Nov 2013).

I have tried to PLOT these in a line graph however and I am getting incorrect results - the dimension is "MonthYear" ("Nov-2013") which is in my "Calendar" table. "DateNo" is also a field in my calendar table and contains the day number (e.g.  41579 for 1/11/2013)

The expression I use is:

= num(count ({$} DISTINCT TID)


sum({$<[$(=Concat({1<$Field-={'VendorName','ModelName''}>}distinct $Field,']=,[')&']='),

[ProdOUTNumeric] = {'>=$(=Min(DateNo))'},

[ProdINNumeric] = {'<=$(=Max(DateNo))'} >} TransRecNo),  '##.##%')

To help me debug this I created 2 text boxes to see what values the numerator and denominator from above calculate to and they are correct when I select a particular month but when plotted it gives me incorrect figures. Am I missing something?

I would really appreciate some help


Not applicable

Excellent. It helps me lot to resolve my problem. Thank you very much.

Version history
Last update:
‎2011-01-26 06:06 AM
Updated by: