
Re: time difference between excel and qlikview
Andrey Khoronenko Mar 2, 2016 3:34 AM (in response to Hasvine Dhurmea)Hello, Hasvine.
In the attached files, your data is modeled in the Excel and QlikView. As can be seen, the conversion results are the same in both cases.
Given that the time change in seconds, the iteration step is 1/86400 = 0.000011574 (60 seconds * 60 hours * 24 minutes = 86,400 seconds in a day). Consequently, distortion may occur if the required number is displayed in the time format .00252099135574689.
Alternatively, it is possible to use in the calculation of time in numeric format, adding a fraction of a second later when the conversion results in the time format.
Kind Regards
Andrey

QV1.qvw 157.5 K

Book1.xlsx 9.3 K


Re: time difference between excel and qlikview
ramu yeluru Mar 2, 2016 3:38 AM (in response to Hasvine Dhurmea)Hi Hasvine ,
Have a nice day.
What is the conversion function your are using.

Re: time difference between excel and qlikview
balraj ahlawat Mar 2, 2016 3:40 AM (in response to Hasvine Dhurmea)Which Excel function gives you the output?

Re: time difference between excel and qlikview
Prashant Sangle Mar 2, 2016 3:43 AM (in response to Hasvine Dhurmea)Hi,
use frac()
try below
=frac(time#('00:03:16','hh:mm:ss'))
Regards

Re: time difference between excel and qlikview
Peter Cammaert Mar 2, 2016 4:06 AM (in response to Hasvine Dhurmea)Both are incorrect.
00:03:16 is equal to 3 * 60 + 16 = 196 seconds. To get the numerical time value, you calculate the part of the day by dividing 196 / 86400 = 0,0022685185185185.
Both QlikView and Excel use the same internal representation for datetime values. I did use neither one. Just Windows calculator.
BTW when entering expression =time(0.0022685185185185) in a QlikView text box, it returns 00:03:16.
When entering 0,0022685185185185 in an Excel cell and changing the cell format to Time, it returns ... 00:03:16.
Best,
Peter

Re: time difference between excel and qlikview
Hasvine Dhurmea Mar 2, 2016 6:32 AM (in response to Peter Cammaert )thank you Peter for your explanation.
Kind Regards,
Hasvine
