Comments on: Time-Sliced Measures Part II: Time Slice Calendar Table

By: GANESH

GANESH — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 05:56:44 +0000

U r great dave.. I like u..

By: Dave Rathbun

Dave Rathbun — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:22:08 +0000

Andreas, you can do either. A user can pick the generic “Sales Revenue” object and combine it with calendar objects, but the user would have to include a date range condition. Or the user can include the “Sales Revenue YTD” object with the month and year calendar objects, and they’ll get YTD revenue broken down by month, without having to enter a date range condition.

By: Andreas (Xeradox)

Andreas (Xeradox) — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 07:54:41 +0000

Hello Dave, am I correct in the assumption that this way the end-user will have only ONE measure object “Sale Revenue” and not multiple measure objects
such as “Sales Revenue – MTD”, “Sales Revenue – Current Year”, etc?

By: Dave Rathbun

Dave Rathbun — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:38:31 +0000

If you want YTD figures broken down by month, only include the YTD measure but also include the Month and Quarter result objects. Add a break on Quarter and do a running sum and you’re there.

The time-sliced objects defined here are good for, as you say, one specific point in time.

By: Jordan Petlev

Jordan Petlev — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:26:31 +0000

Thanks again.. this seems to work great if you’re pulling one point in time, but if you have a need for QTD and YTD by Month in a WEBI report, then it seems to fall apart. It can be pieced back together at the report layer.

Is there some solution that would let me use this method to generate a result set similar to:

Month – MTD Sales – QTD Sales – YTD Sales
1 – 10 – 10 – 10
2 – 10 – 20 – 20
3 – 10 – 30 – 30
4 – 10 – 10 – 40
5 – 10 – 20 – 50
etc…

When I try this method the QTD/YTD only sums up the sales for the timeframes in the given month and doesn’t include the previous months…
I’m wondering if i need to also alias the fact table in conjunction with this…

By: Dave Rathbun

Dave Rathbun — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:36:41 +0000

I fixed the bad link, thanks.

The prompt built-in to the time-sliced measure is separate from any other date restrictions. Our users have learned to use it, and know that they don’t have to provide other date conditions because the time-slice does it for them. So if I wanted to show orders for the year to date (including order number) then I can certainly do that. I include any / all objects that I want to use, include the YTD Sales object, and everything is based on the date prompt embedded within that logic.

By: Jordan Petlev

Jordan Petlev — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 20:27:44 +0000

Thanks Dave, the link I tried was the one in the TOP of the post, seems to have a bad URL

One question however.. if say a person was using this universe (a non universe developer) and was creating an ad-hoc report.
They pull a few elements, but use the “Invoice Date” object in their query filter to display a list of clients who placed orders on a given date.

If they also wanted the person’s YTD order totals, and pulled in your objects, wouldn’t they end up with TWO prompts asking for dates? One from the Object “invoice date” and another generated from the Join itself?

What would you suggest as the best way to avoid this? or is it unavoidable to have this functionality?

By: Dave Rathbun

Dave Rathbun — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:50:04 +0000

Part I is linked at the end of the post. All of the parts should be published for this topic, and the full presentation is on the conference presentations download page, which is a permanent link on the top-right corner of the page.

By: Jordan Petlev

Jordan Petlev — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:16:27 +0000

Dave,
Any chance you could repost part 1 (It seems to have been deleted) and/or point me to the full presentation? I think I’ve got the idea from this one post, but want to be sure I don’t skip anything that might be important. I also never did see Part 3 either

By: Dave Rathbun

Dave Rathbun — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:23:26 +0000

Hi, it’s still in the queue to be completed. Have you reviewed the presentation itself? I believe it contains all of the specifics required to implement this solution.