Database

turn on suggestions

Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

12-06-2011
03:23 AM

12-06-2011
03:23 AM

Hi there,

I have been playing a bit with the running sum over partition and I found out some behaviour I sincerely was not expecting.

Let's make it with a simple example:

*sum(coalesce(sales,0)) over (partition by Account_manager order by month ROWS UNBOUNDED PRECEDING) as cummulative*

There are 4 account managers that make some sales on month 1.

Mth1

AM1 250

AM2 250

AM3 250

AM4 250

-------

total 1000

If the AM1 makes no sales on Month 2 then we have on that month

Mth2

AM2 250

AM3 250

AM4 250

-------

total 750

The cummulative sums happen to be

Mth2

AM2 500

AM3 500

AM4 500

-------

total **1500**

instead of

Mth1 Mth2

**AM1 250 250**

AM2 250 500

AM3 250 500

AM4 250 500

-----------------------------

total **1000 ** **1750**

What happens is that the partition defined has a combination occuring on month 1 but not on month 2. There is no record for that AM1 and therefore is not included in the sum.

I would like to know if there is any way to keep all the combinations as therefore the overall sums are not correct due to the lack of inclusion of the AM1. Something like scanning all the partitions and have the combinations stable across all the partitions.

I know I could use a partition on year level to get all the combinations and then make it as an LOV doing an outer join to the fact table but I don't think is the optimal soultion nor the cleanest one.

I am sure I am not the first person who realises this behaviour on the 'over partition' when the partition combinations are not available in all the partitions.

8 REPLIES

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

12-07-2011
12:40 AM

12-07-2011
12:40 AM

It's hard to follow your explanation, but you need to include a missing month in your result set?

Are you on TD13.10?

There's the new EXPAND ON clause to accomplish that.

Dieter

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

12-07-2011
04:31 AM

12-07-2011
04:31 AM

Hi Dieter,

The current issue is that there is no record with the combination of AM1 and Month2. Therefore, when executing the sum over partition, the Month2 cummulative sum is just summing AM2, AM3 and AM4.

Take into account that for the Month2 the values should be the sum for Month1 and Month2. What I would like is to have the value for the AM1 for the previous month to be incorporated as eventhough he hasn't done any sale on Month2, he did some for Month1 and therefore to be accounted on the overall running sum on Month2.

I don't think the 'EXPAND ON' is what would solve my current issue. I heard something like 'filling the gaps' which potentially would be an option but I haven't read anything about that.

Indeed we are on TD 13.10.

Thanks for your support.

Regards,

Esteve

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

12-08-2011
06:31 AM

12-08-2011
06:31 AM

Hi again,

I read a bit about 'EXPAND ON' and I think it does not solve my current issue because:

- I have records per month and not period ranges
- I don't expand value amongst a time period but want to have a 'fake' record for the months without values

Where can I find more information about the proMISS application?

Regards,

Esteve

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

12-08-2011
02:06 PM

12-08-2011
02:06 PM

Could not get you exactly

SEL

SUM(sales) OVER (PARTITION BY AM ORDER BY DT1 ROWS UNBOUNDED PRECEDING) AS CUMMULATIVE

,AM

,VAL1,

VAL2

FROM TEMP

;

But Above Query gives desired result.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

12-09-2011
06:53 AM

12-09-2011
06:53 AM

Hi Jigar,

Thanks for your comment.

The table has the following values

sales_rep month value

AM1 1 250

AM2 1 250

AM3 1 250

AM4 1 250

AM2 2 250

AM3 2 250

AM4 2 250

So when doing a running sum, there will be no value for the AM1 for the month 2. Therefore the overall running sum for month 2 will NOT include the value for AM1 for the month 1.

Therefore, the running sum is not 'filling the gap' of unexisting combinations.

Hope this explanation helped a bit your understanding of my current problem.

Regards,

Esteve

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

12-09-2011
07:05 AM

12-09-2011
07:05 AM

What's the datatype of "month"?

If you can cast it to a date (preferably 1st of month), you can create a period on-the-fly using

period(month_as_date,

coalesce(min(month_as_date)

over (partition by account_manager

order by month

rows between 1 following and 1 following)

,date '9999-12-31')

) as p

This should not need an extra STATS step in explain, because it's the same PARTITION/ORDER as the cummulative sum.

And then you use an

EXPAND ON p AS p2 BY ANCHOR MONTH_BEGIN

FOR PERIOD (DATE '2011-01-01', DATE '2011-05-01').

This will create any missing rows after the first month with data (showing the previous cummulative sum), but none before, e.g. if you got data for february only this will result in:

feb/mar/april, but no jan row.

Dieter

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

12-09-2011
07:51 AM

12-09-2011
07:51 AM

Hi Dieter,

Thanks indeed for your answer.

It's quite interesting. I was thinking of something similar which would be doing a partition on year level then to know which AM are involved for that year and then expand all the months with zero values. That approach, though, would mean to run twice the scan of the table: one for the year partition with months expanded with zero values and the second one to read the month level records to, later on, sum both of them (zero + value=value).

I would need to check if the situation of not being able to report values for the same year before the 'first' record month is a problem or not from the report perspective.

Again, thanks a lot for sharing your expertise on this problem.

Regards,

Esteve

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

12-11-2011
01:54 AM

12-11-2011
01:54 AM

Hi Dieter,

Which would be the approach for another database which is not on 13.10 but 13.01 as the 'EXPAND ON' functionality is not there?

Thanks again and regards,

Esteve