I am trying to make a comparison between two different dates in the GDS and present that information in a scorecard.
I have done this in the past with no problem, but this time I want to do an absolute comparison. Although I checked the box to make it an absolute comparison, the information appears with a % sign after it. I would like to see a "p.p." after it or nothing at all.
How can I achieve this result?
You can find below an image of what is happening.
Thanks in advance!
UPDATE:
I solved the issue by aligning all the elements of that scorecard to the right and adding a text box in front of the % sign. It is not perfect, but it works.
Not the answer you're looking for, but I don't think this is currently possible. I had to add a disclaimer below the scorecards to indicate the comparison values are absolute (despite the percentages). Not ideal, but at least it shows the info
Related
Before y'all tell me to search please look at the formulas. I have searched and tried all variations mentioned in the docs. The spreadsheet is dead simple. I am trying to populate the driver name cell based on previously recorded license plates. Why is this not working as the docs show? The result with in B11 should be 'Billy Goats'.
Formula with no final value specified (should default to TRUE).
Formula final value sorted set to TRUE, still not working.
Formula final value sorted set to FALSE, still not working.
I am not looking for someone to fix my problem. I just want to know why this is not functioning according to the docs. I am trying to learn, not get free scripting services.
use:
=VLOOKUP(F11, {E1:E10, B1:B10}, 2, 0)
I can almost always find an answer here for a problem, but not this time so I'm asking the community.
I'm having a problem with ArrayFormula not displaying the text in the True branch of an IF when the condition evaluates to True. Instead it displays the text associated with the False branch.
The array formulas are all on row 4. I thought it might be caused by one of them referencing row 5 instead of row 4 and showing the result from the next row but that isn't it.
I thought it might be a corrupted sheet but after recreating in a new sheet the problem was still present.
It is easier to show than to explain so I've provided the gsheet and a short screencast below. A link to the screencast is also in A1 in the gsheet.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H7W__hM2L89faxIOZ23WgboXHgaWe0wYT20aWVr_vD8/edit?usp=sharing
https://www.loom.com/share/a867787fdc6044a3840125e288d4cb8c?from_recorder=1
Thanks much for taking a look...
AND formula is not supported under ARRAYFORMULA
use multiplication:
=ARRAYFORMULA(
IF(D4:D="",,
IF(D4:D<0, "No Profit",
IF(H4:H/(G4:G+1)*D4:D<D1,
IF((C4:C>C1)*(E4:E>(C1*3-1)), "Low Profit"&
TEXT(H4:H/(G4:G+1)*D4:D, "$00"), "Low Price"), H4:H/(G4:G+1)*D4:D))))
also note that anchoring $ in "true" AF is kinda pointless
All. Forgive me I am a newbie in Solr, I am trying to add spell check in the Solr.
Currently I can say it works .But I got a problem which the suggestion is not showing up as I expected.
I tried to search with the keywords lu. and expect the suggestion lung in the result. But it doesn't show up.
the Url is http://10.2.21.38:7574/solr/gettingstarted_shard1_replica2/spell?q=lu&spellcheck=true&spellcheck.collate=true&spellcheck.build=true
Only when I tried with lun. It can return suggestion lung.
Any idea to get it work? Thanks.
Updated
It seems it has something with the configuration <str name="accuracy">{number}</str> the original value is 0.7. When I changed it to smaller value like 0.001 . keywords lu can get the suggestion lung.
But I want to know what does it mean for the accuracy. The document only say a little about it .The accuracy setting defines the threshold for a valid
suggestion. That is it.
Could someone please tell me more about it for better understanding . and Is there any other configuration to affect the suggestion result ? Thanks.
The accuracy setting refers to the value that the active StringDistance calculator returns (which is between 0 and 1, depending on similarity). The standard distance measurer in Lucene is the LevensteinDistance (sic). I'll refer to the source to see how it works - I'm not intimately familiar with the code. The returned value is at least based on:
return 1.0f - ((float) p[n] / Math.max(other.length(), sa.length));
Where p[n] is calculated through the iteration above in the code.
You can change most implementations in the spellchecker, such as the distance measurer or the spellchecker itself. See Spell Checking for examples. maxEdits and minPrefix might be interesting as well. Also, remember that lu and lung have a fairly large difference, as both terms are short and not really misspellings of each other. There are other ways of doing automagic completion, such as the Suggest module or wild card searching against a StrField or a KeywordTokenizer-ed field.
I'm trying to find an algorithm for the game master mind with 4 numbers, where each number can be between 0 to 5, giving 1296 possibilities. With the first guess being 1,1,0,0
there are less options left.
I would like to know how to remove the options which are not suitable according to the first guess.
How to use an array(solutions) and array(current solutions)? Should I use parameterization for that?
Is there an algorithm in C to do that?
Thanks a lot for the help!
The simplest to implement is to simply loop trough all your elements and make the once that no longer work false. This might be the best idea here as looping trough 1300 elements is still quite fast however be aware that there is a faster solution in just finding which type of solutions are no longer available.
For mastermind there are multiple algorithms, see wikipedia, however for your first implementation I think they are too difficult.
You could start by using either
Thijser's idea (slightly better than brute-forcing all possibilities),
or try to emulate a human player: using that a white key-peg means correct color in wrong position and a black key-peg meaning correct color in correct position. You can write an easy recursion to take that info into account:
white-peg -> move the colors around ;
black-peg remove colors to find out which of the colors was the one that was correct-in-correct-pos.
I'm trying to run a distance transform on a thresholded binary image in
order to assist anomaly detection (my hope is that I can detect large
changes around the edges of the object), however for some reason, upon
running my Distance Transform script, I'm getting a strange banding type of
effect. I tested something similar in the Distance Transform demo script in
the samples directory, with the same results. One possible reason I came up
with was that the distance was going beyond the 0-255 scale and therefore
essentially being modulus'ed to keep it within the boundaries. Has anyone
had any experience with this that could advise?
I have posted images and code on my blog if that helps
Thanks in advance,
Ian
One quick way to test your theory: try with a grey scale image that's muted (all values v --> 128+(v-128)/32 or something) and see if that makes the bands much wider or eliminates them completely.
It's always a good idea to nail down what the problem is first, and then try to fix it.
I can't help with the code, but I'd like to point out that the expected result on your blog is probably incorrect as well: look at the sharp black-gray border in the bottom part of the large object: it should not be there, as the maximum difference between two adjacent pixels should be 1.