Do not input private or sensitive data. View Qlik Privacy & Cookie Policy.
Skip to main content

Announcements
Want to see what's currently in public preview? We've pulled it all together in one place. Check it out here
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
pedro_freire
Contributor III
Contributor III

Set Modifier element list logical aggregation

I have the following challenge:

The expression bellow will count distinct InvoiceIDs that include, either product A OR Product B.

Count(DISTINCT {<Product ={'A',’B’}>} InvoiceID)

If I want to know how many stores have sold Product A or Product B, I will have a similar expression:

Count(DISTINCT {<Product ={'A',’B’}>} StoreID)

What is the simpler and most performing way to know how many stores have sold Product A AND Product B simultaneously?

Pedro Freire

Labels (1)
5 Replies
sunny_talwar
MVP
MVP

May be this:

Count(DISTINCT {<Product ={'A'}>*<Product = {'B’}>} StoreID)

Not applicable

Count(distinct if(Product = 'A' AND Product = 'B'),([StoreID]))

OR try creating a new calculated dimension "Both" determining if a store sold both product A and B and then try the following

Count(distinct if(Product = 'Both'),([StoreID]))


Hope this answers your question!

swuehl
Champion III
Champion III

This should only need to calculate the intersection on StoreID field values, not for the complete record set:

Count({<StoreID = p({<Product ={'A'>})*p({<Product ={’B’}>}) >} DISTINCT StoreID)

or maybe create a data model that would support a list box for a Product field in AND-Mode and then use this in your set analysis:

Qlik Tips: AND Mode in Set Analysis

swuehl
Champion III
Champion III

Another option could also be

Count({<StoreID = {"=Count({<Product ={'A',’B’}>}DISTINCT Product)=2"} >} DISTINCT StoreID)

pedro_freire
Contributor III
Contributor III
Author

Hello Stefan,

I guess this might be a litle bold on my part, but stalwar1 mention you are my only hope!

I wonder if I can dare you for another challange?

Evaluate Chart Expression at line level - Part3

Thanks

Pedro Freire