Forum Discussion
Correct SUMMARIZATION in a SUMMARIZE TABLE
- 3 years ago
Anonymous Maybe because in this PBIX I get identical results in the summarized table and the table visual. See PBIX below.
This is an example of the data:
| PROJECT | TASK | TEAM | PHASE | Planned Hours |
| 89685 | Design Check | CCB | Phase 01 | 43 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail | CCB | Phase 09 | 42 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail | CCB | Phase 08 | 40 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 09 | 35 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 04 | 25 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 05 | 25 |
| 89685 | Review | CCB | Phase 08 | 24 |
| 89685 | Prod Check Trim | CCB | Phase 08 | 21 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 01 | 20 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 02 | 20 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 04 | 20 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 05 | 20 |
| 89685 | Prod Check | CCB | Phase 01 | 16 |
| 89685 | Prod Check | CCB | Phase 02 | 16 |
| 89685 | Prod Check | CCB | Phase 03 | 16 |
| 89685 | Prod Check | CCB | Phase 04 | 16 |
| 89685 | Prod Check | CCB | Phase 05 | 16 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 01 | 11 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 02 | 11 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 03 | 11 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 04 | 11 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 05 | 11 |
| 89685 | Design | CCB | Phase 01 | 8 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail Corrections | VVD | Phase 03 | 8 |
| 89685 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 01 | 4 |
| 89685 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 02 | 4 |
| 89685 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 04 | 4 |
| 89685 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 05 | 4 |
| 89685 | Prod Detail | CCB | Phase 09 | 4 |
| 89685 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 03 | 1 |
| 89685 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 09 | 0.5 |
| 89685 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 09 | 0.5 |
| 89685 | Drawings | CCB | Phase 09 | 0.5 |
| 89685 | Drawings | CCB | Phase 01 | 0.5 |
| 89685 | Drawings | CCB | Phase 02 | 0.5 |
| 89685 | Drawings | CCB | Phase 03 | 0.5 |
| 89685 | Drawings | CCB | Phase 04 | 0.5 |
| 89685 | Drawings | CCB | Phase 05 | 0.5 |
| 89685 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 01 | 0.06 |
| 89685 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 02 | 0.06 |
| 89685 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 03 | 0.06 |
| 89685 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 04 | 0.06 |
| 89685 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 05 | 0.06 |
| 89685 | Design Release to Drafting | CCB | Phase 01 | 0 |
| 89685 | IFC Drawings Mailed | CCB | Phase 01 | 0 |
| 89685 | IFC Drawings Mailed | CCB | Phase 02 | 0 |
| 89685 | IFC Drawings Mailed | CCB | Phase 03 | 0 |
| 89685 | IFC Drawings Mailed | CCB | Phase 04 | 0 |
| 89685 | IFC Drawings Mailed | CCB | Phase 05 | 0 |
| 89685 | Release to Fabrication | CCB | Phase 01 | 0 |
| 89685 | Release to Fabrication | CCB | Phase 02 | 0 |
| 89685 | Release to Fabrication | CCB | Phase 03 | 0 |
| 89685 | Release to Fabrication | CCB | Phase 04 | 0 |
| 89685 | Release to Fabrication | CCB | Phase 05 | 0 |
| 89685 | Release to Fabrication | CCB | Phase 08 | 0 |
| 89685 | Release to Fabrication | CCB | Phase 09 | 0 |
| 72589 | Design Check | CCB | Phase 01 | 50 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail | CCB | Phase 09 | 32 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail | CCB | Phase 08 | 80 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 09 | 53 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 04 | 52 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 05 | 52 |
| 72589 | Reviewdwgs | CCB | Phase 08 | 42 |
| 72589 | Prod Check Trim | CCB | Phase 08 | 12 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail Corrections | VVD | Phase 01 | 20 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail Corrections | VVD | Phase 02 | 10 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail Corrections | VVD | Phase 04 | 35 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail Corrections | VVD | Phase 05 | 25 |
| 72589 | Prod Check | CCB | Phase 01 | 16 |
| 72589 | Prod Check | CCB | Phase 02 | 35 |
| 72589 | Prod Check | CCB | Phase 03 | 45 |
| 72589 | Prod Check | CCB | Phase 04 | 52 |
| 72589 | Prod Check | CCB | Phase 05 | 83 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 01 | 45 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 02 | 12 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 03 | 10 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 04 | 98 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail | VVD | Phase 05 | 83 |
| 72589 | Design | CCB | Phase 01 | 88 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail Corrections | VVD | Phase 03 | 5 |
| 72589 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 01 | 7 |
| 72589 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 02 | 4 |
| 72589 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 04 | 2 |
| 72589 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 05 | 10 |
| 72589 | Prod Detail | CCB | Phase 09 | 3 |
| 72589 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 03 | 10 |
| 72589 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 09 | 0.5 |
| 72589 | Drawings Review | CCB | Phase 09 | 0.5 |
| 72589 | MailDrawings | CCB | Phase 09 | 0.5 |
| 72589 | MailDrawings | CCB | Phase 01 | 0.5 |
| 72589 | MailDrawings | CCB | Phase 02 | 0.5 |
| 72589 | MailDrawings | CCB | Phase 03 | 0.5 |
| 72589 | MailDrawings | CCB | Phase 04 | 0.5 |
| 72589 | MailDrawings | CCB | Phase 05 | 0.5 |
| 72589 | Sealing | VVD | Phase 01 | 1 |
| 72589 | Sealing | VVD | Phase 02 | 1 |
| 72589 | Sealing | VVD | Phase 03 | 1 |
| 72589 | Sealing | CCB | Phase 04 | 1 |
| 72589 | Sealing | CCB | Phase 05 | 1 |
| 72589 | Design Release to Fab | CCB | Phase 01 | 0 |
| 72589 | IFC Drawings Mailed | CCB | Phase 01 | 0 |
| 72589 | IFC Drawings Mailed | CCB | Phase 02 | 0 |
| 72589 | IFC Drawings Mailed | CCB | Phase 03 | 0 |
| 72589 | IFC Drawings Mailed | CCB | Phase 04 | 0 |
| 72589 | IFC Drawings Mailed | CCB | Phase 05 | 0 |
| 72589 | Release to Fabrication | CCB | Phase 01 | 0 |
| 72589 | Release to Fabrication | CCB | Phase 02 | 0 |
| 72589 | Release to Fabrication | CCB | Phase 03 | 0 |
| 72589 | Release to Fabrication | VVD | Phase 04 | 0 |
| 72589 | Release to Fabrication | VVD | Phase 05 | 0 |
| 72589 | Release to Fabrication | VVD | Phase 08 | 0 |
| 72589 | Release to Fabrication | VVD | Phase 09 | 0 |
Anonymous What about this?
Table 2 =
VAR __Table =
ADDCOLUMNS(
SUMMARIZE('Table', [PROJECT], [PHASE], "Hours", SUM('Table'[Planned Hours]), "CCB", SUMX(FILTER('Table',[TEAM] = "CCB"),[Planned Hours])),
"Ratio", DIVIDE([CCB], [Hours])
)
RETURN
__Table- Anonymous3 years agoNot applicable
Hi Greg_Deckler ,
I'll keep in mind your suggestion regarding the use of CALCULATE.
On the other hand I tried this new alternative and the result is the same.I wonder if the fact that this table grouping the blank (No PHASE assigned) have something to do with the difference in the results.
- Greg_Deckler3 years ago
Community Champion
Anonymous Maybe because in this PBIX I get identical results in the summarized table and the table visual. See PBIX below.
- Anonymous3 years agoNot applicable
Hi Greg_Deckler
It took me a while to get back on track and review the option. It did provide the same results, so I decided go back 1 step and summarize the original table removing all the unnecesary criterias, since one of those was affecting the outcome. After that any of the provide options did gives out with the correct assignation ratio so, thanks for the help!