Forum Discussion
Filter Doesn't Works
This can be a number of things.
- You have blank values it seems in your DIM table. That is never good. You shouldn't have data in your FACT table not in your DIM table unless you intend to, and then you will be using different measures for calculating values, and you cannot use filters/slicers efficiently since those don't exist in the DIM table.
- Could be spelling differences, or spaces. Is it "Shopping" in one table and "Shopping " in your other table?
- I am not clear on how that bi-directional many-to-many is affecting the model for these particluar fields.
There could be other issues too. Without the PBIX, just tossing out things for you to look at.
I really don't know what's going on here. The problem does not seem to be exactly with the filter. Look at these tables:
table 1 is the Operation (dimension table) and the store id (fact table). Table 2 contains only the operation (dimension table). Although in table 1 there are stores with the classification "shopping", this option does not even appear when I select only the type of operation in another table.
I'd need to see an image of the model and prefereably a link to a PBIX file. Screenshots of slicers and visuals dont' really tell me how they are connected.
I cannot send the file because this data is confidential. But here's the model. (id_etb_gcom = Id_loja)
This can be a number of things.
- You have blank values it seems in your DIM table. That is never good. You shouldn't have data in your FACT table not in your DIM table unless you intend to, and then you will be using different measures for calculating values, and you cannot use filters/slicers efficiently since those don't exist in the DIM table.
- Could be spelling differences, or spaces. Is it "Shopping" in one table and "Shopping " in your other table?
- I am not clear on how that bi-directional many-to-many is affecting the model for these particluar fields.
There could be other issues too. Without the PBIX, just tossing out things for you to look at.
It worked, and it was for something related to point three of what you mentioned.I have no idea why, but the fact that there is a many-to-many relationship between D_Store and the second fact table was messing up the relationship with the first fact table as well. When I canceled the many-to-many relationship with the second fact table, everything worked normally.
Thank you, bro!