The ultimate Fabric, Power BI, SQL, and AI community-led learning event. Save €200 with code FABCOMM.
Get registeredCompete to become Power BI Data Viz World Champion! First round ends August 18th. Get started.
Hello, I need advice with a data modeling problem. Below you may find 3 screenshots and attached PBIX file.
Screenshots below show:
This data model contains several linking tables for many-to-many relationship between Recommendations table and different geography levels tables (State, County, City). I know that some relationships need to be changed in order to fix this problem but I'm not sure which ones.
Screenshot 1 - What my report looks like:
p
Screenshot 2 - The problem I am experiencing:
p
Screenshot 3 - My current data model:
p
Thank you!
Solved! Go to Solution.
I was able to figure out this problem on my own. In order to take care of hierarchy between geographical dimension tables (State/County/City) all I had to do was to create Location table with nullable Foreign Keys. See below screenshot.
I was able to figure out this problem on my own. In order to take care of hierarchy between geographical dimension tables (State/County/City) all I had to do was to create Location table with nullable Foreign Keys. See below screenshot.
@al1mon , I removed some bi-directional relations. But this model needs changes. recommandation will merge with State_rec , country_rec and City_rec and create three fact recommandation_State_rec , recommandation_country_rec
City_rec_recommandatio. They will not join with each other
https://www.sqlbi.com/articles/the-importance-of-star-schemas-in-power-bi/
Thanks for looking into this.
I have tried your proposed solution but it breaks cross filtering across other visuals. See below screenshot.
Can you please elaborate on how you propose to change the data model. I am afraid I don't fully understand your previous explanation. I need to keep cross-filter both directions for State > County > City relationships.
Also I assumed state_recs, county_recs and city_recs are already considered fact tables since they contain foreign keys from recommendations and states/counties/cities respectively.
User | Count |
---|---|
87 | |
84 | |
36 | |
35 | |
30 |
User | Count |
---|---|
95 | |
74 | |
67 | |
52 | |
51 |