Can You FILTER() That Down For Me


The last several weeks I have been looking at how PowerPivot in Excel works with Row Context and Filtered Context. I showed that most column expressions use a row context while measures use a filtered context although I could add and remove filters using certain expressions that allowed me to define a filter as a Boolean expression in one of the parameters. Last time we even looked at how to remove the filters by using the ALL() function. This time I will explore the FILTER() function which allows me to define a permanent filter condition to a measure no matter what dimensions or slicers the user chooses for the pivot table. In fact, in the case I am going to show you today, I need to do this because I need one measure to use all filters defined by the dimensions in the pivot table, and I need another measure to obey those filters plus one more.

Again I will use my Contoso data model that I’ve been using for all the examples in this set. I want to look at the number of orders that have returns and compare that to the total number of orders. I initially will want to show this information by sales channel and year/month. However, once I have my pivot table defined, I could of course change the dimensions I want to explore.

Let’s begin with a basic Sales pivot table as shown below.

I built this table using my basic data model with no additional calculated columns or measures except the calculated column in the date dimension that I use to order the name of the months correctly. I can use any of the columns in the FactSales table as my value field as long as I change the aggregate function from SUM to COUNT. By default, Pivot tables assume that numeric fields are summed and non-numeric fields are counted. But as long as I change the aggregate function for numeric fields to COUNT, I will get my desired results. I also modified the formatting to get rid of any decimal places and to add a thousands separator. Other than that, I did nothing special to build this table.

However, now I am going to return to the FactSales table and add a simple measure to count the total number of sales. The expression I will use is shown in the following figure.

I use the COUNT() function which has a single parameter, the name of the column I want to count. Again I could choose any column, but I chose the column [ReturnQuantity]. I will come back to format this measure in a moment, but you can see that the count is a little over two and a quarter million sales records. In fact, I know that this is correct by simply looking at the number of rows in my FactSales table.

Next, I want to count the number of sales records that have returns. This I can do by comparing either the [ReturnQuantity] column or the [ReturnAmount] column to 0. Only sales records which have values greater than 0 for these two columns represent orders which had returns. How can I do this?

One way I could do this is to use the SUMX() functionwith a second measure named [ReturnCount2]. This function has two parameters. The first parameter must be a table and second parameter is an expression of what I want to count. So I might think that I could do something like the following expression:

ReturnCount2:=SUMX(FactSales,IF(FactSales[ReturnAmount]>0, 1, 0))

The theory is that I want to compare the column [ReturnAmount] to 0 and if it is greater than zero to add one to my ReturnCount2 value. I cannot simply sum the [ReturnAmount] because this column represents the dollar value of the return. Nor can I use [ReturnQuantity] because the buyer may have returned more than one of the item from the order and summing the quantity would over count the total number of orders with returns.

I could also use the COUNTX() function. However, if I simply replace SUMX() with COUNTX(), I will get the total number of orders in the FactSales table because COUNTX() will could all non-blank rows. But I can trick the IF() into returning a blank for orders without returns by using the following expression:

ReturnCount2:=COUNTX(FactSales,IF(FactSales[ReturnAmount]>0, 1, BLANK()))

But both of these solutions used the entire FactSales table. There is one other way I want to show you today. I can use the FILTER() function to apply a filter to the FactSales table to return a subtable that only has rows with returns by using the following expression to return a table

FILTER(FactSales, FactSales[ReturnAmount]>0.0)

I can now replace the first parameter in COUNTX() with this FILTER() result which is a filtered table. I can then use any column in FactSales as the column I want to count. Well, almost any column. Actually, I cannot reuse the [ReturnAmount] column which is used in the FILTER() expression because this confuses DAX, but as I said before, I can count on any column in the table. Therefore, my [ReturnCount2] measure expression is shown below.

In this image you can see that I already formatted my measures as numbers without decimals but with thousands separators. Why do I format the numbers here? Simply because it saves time from having to format the numbers in each pivot table in which I use the measures. If I display these two measures in my pivot table side by side, I can see the total number of order by channel in each month along with the number of orders that had returns.

Suppose I wanted to show this information to management and rather than look at the raw counts which could take a bit of time to interpret, I decide to calculate the percent of orders that have returns. I can create a third measure as shown in the following figure that uses the results of the first two measures. I can then format this measure as a percentage prior to using it in my pivot table.

Returning to my pivot table, I remove the counts which I no longer need to display and replace them with the [Percent_Returns] so that management can quickly see that Catalog sales result in the most returns and Store sales in the least returns. Returns do not vary greatly by month, something that I will leave up to you to explore with a Pivot Chart.

Well, I hoped you learned some new ways to apply different filters in your measures from this discussion. C’ya next time.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s