on 2022 Apr 04 1:59 PM
Hello experts,
i'd like to know if there is a solution in SAC for the following problem:
H1 - 50 kg
H1.1 - 50 kg
H1.2 - 50 kg
I have articles which can be in H1.1 and H1.2 at the same time but in total i have 50 kg not 100kg. Currently the result for H1 is 100kg which is wrong. Hierarchy is build in SAC.
Technical situation:
Thanks in advance for any help. I hope the provided information is enough to understand my problem.
Kr
Benaissa
Hi mtayibi,
Not really sure how you would like H1.1 and H1.2 to be aggregated into H1 node. SAC has by default aggregation behavior sum, you can define exceptional aggregation behavior with account formula or measure formula. Your example looks like average aggregation which can be achieved in this way.
Best regards, William
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi william.yu. Does your answer here mean that you cannot actually influence the behaviour of aggregation up a hierarchy?
Taking Benaissa's example, say you have a measure called "Weight", and you have a Product dimension with a hierarchy.
Product 1 has Weight = 50kg, Product 2 has Weight = 60kg. They have a common parent called Product Group 1.
The desired result would be to see 55kg (average of 50 and 60) appearing against the parent in the hierarchy.
What is the best way to achieve this?
At present, the measure definition window in SAC only gives you the "option" to set Sum aggregation. You can try setting Exception Aggregation to Average, referencing Dimension = Product but this doesn't actually do anything if you are using a new model with both measures and accounts. The change only takes effect if you additionally apply the exception aggregation in the Account dimension, even if "Prioritise Measures" is selected in the model preferences. This may be quite inconvenient if you want different behaviour for different measures across a single account member.
Looking forward to any clarification you can offer. Kind Regards
Hi william.yu, Sorry I may not have been clear with my point.
In your example above, does your model have an Account dimension ?
When I perform the same test on my model, the measure setting alone will not result in the behaviour you have shown.
Instead, it only works when you also set every Account member to use Average exception aggregation, which is not necessarily desirable. This is true even when priority is given to measures, which seems wrong.
Any comments on this or are we looking at the wrong thing?
Hi ebajema1,,
Yes, I have account dimension in the model, and the account I used in this case has no aggregation type at all. Actually doesn't matter if the account member having aggregation type null or SUM, it's always Average on this measure.
Not sure why it's not working for you.
Best regards, William
User | Count |
---|---|
73 | |
10 | |
10 | |
10 | |
10 | |
9 | |
8 | |
7 | |
5 | |
5 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.