Forum Discussion

Anonymous's avatar
Anonymous
Not applicable
8 years ago
Solved

Performance - High Resource Usage - CALCULATE with SUMMARIZE

Cheers guys.

 

I am using something like:

 

MEASURE = 
CALCULATE (
    SUM ( 'TABLE1'[COLUMN1] );
    FILTER (
        SUMMARIZE (
            ALL (
                'TABLE1'[ID];
                'TABLE1'[MonthYear]
            );
            'TABLE1'[ID];
            'TABLE1'[MonthYear];
            "MEASURE3"; SUM ( 'TABLE1'[COLUMN2] )
        );
        [MEASURE3] >= 200
    )
)

It's a way to do what I want (calculate a measure with context and conditions), but it takes enormous resources to calculate and I couldn't even get a result so far because it breaks.

 

Any tips on performance for this one?

 

Thanks in advance.

  • Hi svalen ,

     

    Summarize() will take much calculation of DAX engine. How many rows and columns are there in your data source.  In addtion, there is 1GB data size limitation in power bi so pleae check if your data size is too large.

     

    Regards,

    Jimmy Tao

2 Replies

  • v-yuta-msft's avatar
    v-yuta-msft
    Icon for Community Support rankCommunity Support

    Hi svalen ,

     

    Summarize() will take much calculation of DAX engine. How many rows and columns are there in your data source.  In addtion, there is 1GB data size limitation in power bi so pleae check if your data size is too large.

     

    Regards,

    Jimmy Tao

    • Anonymous's avatar
      Anonymous
      Not applicable

      Hi again v-yuta-msft

       

      Like 5M rows.

       

      In the meantime, I think this has to do with the fact that I added a second ID on the visual that isn't in the SUMMARIZE and it just can't calculate.

       

      Different measure, but related with the other post we are discussing:

       

      http://community.powerbi.com/t5/Desktop/Context-on-Measure-with-Summarize/m-p/464113#M215397

       

      I didn't add the second ID on the SUMMARIZE because I couldn't solve the aggregation issue, similar to what we are discussing on the other post.

       

      I will mark this as solved, thanks.