Forum Discussion

Anonymous's avatar
Anonymous
Not applicable
4 years ago
Solved

Incremental Refresh - Duplicate Rows for Refresh Window

Hi,   I've set up Incremental Refresh on my PBIX file. When checking the PBIX file against the Power BI Service, I noticed that the results for the Refresh Window in the Service are double that of ...
Need Help
Show and Tell
  • Anonymous's avatar
    Anonymous
    4 years ago

    Hi lbendlin ,

     

    I think I understand now. I've set the RangeStart parameter to filter to dates AFTER and the RangeEnd parameter to filter dates BEFORE or EQUAL TO. Previously they both had EQUAL TO in the filter.


    This seems to have corrected it.

     

    Thanks,

    Mark

lbendlin's avatar
lbendlin
Icon for Super User rankSuper User
4 years ago

there can be many reasons for your symptoms. Maybe you can provide more details on your setup

 

- parameters must be datetime or datenumber

- parameters cannot both be inclusive

- incremental refresh does not account for scenarios where older data gets changed.

 

Incremental refresh for datasets and real-time data in Power BI - Power BI | Microsoft Docs

Advanced incremental refresh and real-time data with the XMLA endpoint in Power BI - Power BI | Microsoft Docs

  • Anonymous's avatar
    Anonymous
    Not applicable
    4 years ago

    Hi lbendlin ,

     

    Thanks for replying. I can confirm that my RangeStart and RangeEnd parameters are DateTime formatted, as below:

    When you say that parameters cannot both be inclusive, what do you mean by this?

     

    On your final point, this is understood. I've set my refresh window to be 60 days, which should be enough of a window to catch anything that changes.

     

    Thanks,

    Mark

    • Anonymous's avatar
      Anonymous
      Not applicable
      4 years ago

      Hi lbendlin ,

       

      I think I understand now. I've set the RangeStart parameter to filter to dates AFTER and the RangeEnd parameter to filter dates BEFORE or EQUAL TO. Previously they both had EQUAL TO in the filter.


      This seems to have corrected it.

       

      Thanks,

      Mark