I have a table in excel like the one below
Date | Type | Value
----------------------------------
21/01/2012 | Other | 1000
22/02/2012 | Existing | 1000
23/01/2012 | Existing | 1000
24/01/2012 | Other | 1000
12/02/2012 | Other | 1000
13/02/2012 | Existing | 1000
16/02/2012 | Other | 1000
19/01/2012 | Other | 1000
I want a formula that will add up all values of existing client for each month so for example it would say 1000 for January existing and 300 for January other.
I have tried everything i know how but i can't seem to make it work.
=SUMIFS(P2:P74,N2:N74,">="&N13,N2:N74,"<="&N43,O2:O74,"other")
where N13 is first and N43 is last day of the month, P is your value range and o Is column witho other /existing.
Try sumifs after extracting the month from the date column
Related
I am working in Cognos version 11.2.4 and working to attain row totals on a Crosstab report. The table I'm working with has several Locations listed as rows, Hour as columns (24 'Hours'), and count and average time measures. Using the default options to Summarize the columnar data is not an issue - I am able to get a Total for the count column and an overall average for each Average Time column. When attempting to retrieve row summarizations however, I receive an error message:
Error Message
I don't understand the verbiage stating the object selected represents a single value as it should be performing the aggregation on each column for the given row.
My expected results are outlined below:
**Hour 1** **Hour 2**
| Count | Average Time | Count | Average Time | Total | Average |
| -------- | ------------ | -------- | ------------ | ------- | --------- |
Location A| 20 | .5 | 15 | .75 | 35 | .625 |
Location B| 15 | .25 | 25 | .5 | 40 | .375 |
My question is: are the default summary options within Cognos Crosstabs not suitable for row level aggregations?
I've got a table that contains sales information for several companies. Each sales transaction the company makes is stored in the table, and the week of the year (1-52) that the sale took place within is stored also. Here's a small example of the database table that I'm querying to produce the SSRS report.
|---------------------|------------------|------------------|
| Company | Week |Sales_Transaction |
|---------------------|------------------|------------------|
| Alpha | 20 | 1.00 |
|---------------------|------------------|------------------|
| Alpha | 20 | 2.00 |
|---------------------|------------------|------------------|
| Beta | 20 | 9.00 |
|---------------------|------------------|------------------|
| Alpha | 21 | 5.00 |
|---------------------|------------------|------------------|
| Coolbeans | 21 | 5.50 |
|---------------------|------------------|------------------|
| Alpha | 22 | 2.00 |
|---------------------|------------------|------------------|
| Alpha | 22 | 2.00 |
|---------------------|------------------|------------------|
| Coolbeans | 22 | 3.00 |
|---------------------|------------------|------------------|
I have a matrix with a row group which produces a line in the matrix for each company. The matrix has 52 additional columns for each week of the year. Here's a condensed version of the matrix and data I want to see.
|--------------|---------------|----------------|----------------|
| Company | # Sales Wk 20 | # Sales Wk 21 | # Sales Wk 22 |
|--------------|---------------|----------------|----------------|
| Alpha | 2 | 1 | 2 |
|--------------|---------------|----------------|----------------|
| Beta | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|--------------|---------------|----------------|----------------|
| Coolbeans | 0 | 1 | 1 |
|--------------|---------------|----------------|----------------|
To count the number of sales transactions for each week for each company, I'm using this expression like this for each column:
=Count(IIF(Fields!Sales_Week_Number.Value = "20", Fields!Sales.Value, 0))
Using the example expression above which I'm placing in the # Sales Wk 20 matrix column, the problem is that instead of counting ONLY the transactions that occurred in week 20, it counts transactions for all weeks for the company. The result is that in column # Sales Wk 20, it shows a 5 for Alpha, a 1 for Beta, and a 2 for Coolbeans.
What do I need to do to make it only count the sales transaction from the specific week?
Side Note: Regarding the 52 columns for each week of the year, I intentionally did not use a column group for this b/c I need to do some other calculations/comparisons with another matrix which doesn't play nice when column groups are used. I did, however, use a row group for the companies.
Your expression should use SUM instead of count
=SUM(IIF(Fields!Sales_Transaction.Value=0,0,1))
I think you may be going down the wrong path here. Since your using a matrix in SSRS, then the easiest way is to make SSRS handle the separation for you rather than building a WHERE.
Try just adding =CountRows() as part of your formula, and ssrs handles the grouping for you. I'll check the format of the command when I'm on-line properly not on my phone.
Use this expression in your matrix's value column -
=IIf((Fields!Sales_Transaction.Value)>0,Count(Fields!Sales_Transaction.Value),0);
Say that I gain +5 coins from every room I complete. What I'm trying to do is to make a formula in Excel that gets the total coins I've gotten from the first room to the 100th room.
With C++, I guess it would be something like:
while (lastRoom > 0)
{
totalCoins = lastRoom*5;
lastRoom--;
}
totalCoins, being an array so that you can just output the sum of the array.
So if ever, how do you put this code in excel and get it to work? Or is there any other way to get the total coins?
The are infinite solutions.
One is to build a table like this:
+---+----------+---------------+
| | A | B |
+---+----------+---------------+
| 1 | UserID | RoomCompleted |
| 2 | User 001 | Room 1 |
| 3 | User 002 | Room 1 |
| 4 | User 002 | Room 2 |
| 5 | User 002 | Room 3 |
+---+----------+---------------+
them pivot the spreadsheet to get the following:
+---+----------+-----------------------+
| | A | B |
+---+----------+-----------------------+
| 1 | User | Total Rooms completed |
| 2 | User 001 | 1 |
| 3 | User 002 | 3 |
+---+----------+-----------------------+
where you have the number of completed rooms for each users. You can now multiplicate the number per 5 as a simple formula or (better) as a calculated filed of the pivot.
If I understand you correctly you shouldn't need any special code, just a formula:
=(C2-A2+1)*B2
Where C2 = Nth room, A2 = Previous Room, and B2 = coin reward. You can change A2, B2, or C2 and the formula in D2 will output the result.
You can use the formula for sum of integers less than n: (n - 1)*(n / 2), then multiply it by coin count so you will get something like: 5 * (n - 1)*(n / 2). Then you just hook it up to your table.
Hope it helps
I have a table that I'm trying to populate based on the values of two reference tables.
I have various different projects 'Type 1', 'Type 2' etc. that each run for 4 months and cost different amounts depending on when in their life cycle they are. These costings are shown in Ref Table 1.
Ref Table 1
Month | a | b | c | d
---------------------------------
Type 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Type 2 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40
Type 3 | 100 | 200 | 300 | 400
Ref Table 2 shows my schedule of projects for the next 3 months. With 2 new ones starting in Jan, one being a Type 1 and the other being a Type 2. In Feb, I'll have 4 projects, the first two entering their second month and two new ones start, but this time a Type 1 and a Type 3.
Ref table 2
Date | Jan | Feb | Mar
--------------------------
Type 1 | a | b | c
Type 1 | | a | b
Type 2 | a | b | c
Type 2 | | | a
Type 3 | | a | b
I'd like to create a table which calculates the total costs spent per project type each month. Example results are shown below in Results table.
Results
Date | Jan | Feb | Mar
-------------------------------
Type 1 | 1 | 3 | 5
Type 2 | 10 | 20 | 40
Type 3 | 0 | 100 | 200
I tried doing it with an array formula:
Res!b2 = {sum(if((Res!A2 = Ref2!A2:A6) * (Res!A2 = Ref1!A2:A4) * (Ref2!B2:D6 = Ref1!B1:D1), Ref!B2:E4))}
However it doesn't work and I believe that it's because of the third condition trying to compare a vector with another vector rather than a single value.
Does anyone have any idea how I can do this? Happy to use arrays, index, match, vector, lookups but NOT VBA.
Thanks
Assuming that months in results table headers are in the same order as Ref table 2 (as per your example) then try this formula in Res!B2
=SUM(SUMIF(Ref1!$B$1:$E$1,IF(Ref2!$A$2:$A$6=Res!$A2,Ref2!B$2:B$6),INDEX(Ref1!$B$2:$E$4,MATCH(Res!$A2,Ref1!$A$2:$A$4,0),0)))
confirm with CTRL+SHIFT+ENTER and copy down and across
That gives me the same results as you get in your results table
If the months might be in different orders then you can add something to check that too - I assumed that the types in results table row labels might be in a different order to Ref table 1, but if they are always in the same order too (as per your example) then the INDEX/MATCH part at the end can be simplified to a single range
I have a table that stores a group of attributes and keeps them ordered in a sequence. The chance exists that one of the attributes (rows) could be deleted from the table, and the sequence of positions should be compacted.
For instance, if I originally have these set of values:
+----+--------+-----+
| id | name | pos |
+----+--------+-----+
| 1 | one | 1 |
| 2 | two | 2 |
| 3 | three | 3 |
| 4 | four | 4 |
+----+--------+-----+
And the second row was deleted, the position of all subsequent rows should be updated to close the gaps. The result should be this:
+----+--------+-----+
| id | name | pos |
+----+--------+-----+
| 1 | one | 1 |
| 3 | three | 2 |
| 4 | four | 3 |
+----+--------+-----+
Is there a way to do this update in a single query? How could I do this?
PS: I'd appreciate examples for both SQLServer and Oracle, since the system is supposed to support both engines. Thanks!
UPDATE: The reason for this is that users are allowed to modify the positions at will, as well as adding or deleting new rows. Positions are shown to the user, and for that reason, these should show a consistence sequence at all times (and this sequence must be stored, and not generated on demand).
Not sure it works, But with Oracle I would try the following:
update my_table set pos = rownum;
this would work but may be suboptimal for large datasets:
SQL> UPDATE my_table t
2 SET pos = (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM my_table WHERE id <= t.id);
3 rows updated
SQL> select * from my_table;
ID NAME POS
---------- ---------- ----------
1 one 1
3 three 2
4 four 3
Do you really need the sequence values to be contiguous, or do you just need to be able to display the contiguous values? The easiest way to do this is to let the actual sequence become sparse and calculate the rank based on the order:
select id,
name,
dense_rank() over (order by pos) as pos,
pos as sparse_pos
from my_table
(note: this is an Oracle-specific query)
If you make the position sparse in the first place, this would even make re-ordering easier, since you could make each new position halfway between the two existing ones. For instance, if you had a table like this:
+----+--------+-----+
| id | name | pos |
+----+--------+-----+
| 1 | one | 100 |
| 2 | two | 200 |
| 3 | three | 300 |
| 4 | four | 400 |
+----+--------+-----+
When it becomes time to move ID 4 into position 2, you'd just change the position to 150.
Further explanation:
Using the above example, the user initially sees the following (because you're masking the position):
+----+--------+-----+
| id | name | pos |
+----+--------+-----+
| 1 | one | 1 |
| 2 | two | 2 |
| 3 | three | 3 |
| 4 | four | 4 |
+----+--------+-----+
When the user, through your interface, indicates that the record in position 4 needs to be moved to position 2, you update the position of ID 4 to 150, then re-run your query. The user sees this:
+----+--------+-----+
| id | name | pos |
+----+--------+-----+
| 1 | one | 1 |
| 4 | four | 2 |
| 2 | two | 3 |
| 3 | three | 4 |
+----+--------+-----+
The only reason this wouldn't work is if the user is editing the data directly in the database. Though, even in that case, I'd be inclined to use this kind of solution, via views and instead-of triggers.