cancel
Showing results for
Did you mean: ## DAX Context Transition: Why it can be handy to use a [Measure] inside a Measure

Today I want to discuss an advanced reason for using a [Measure] inside another Measure. In beginner classes for DAX, I tell my students that they can use a [Measure] inside another Measure in order to:

• Refer to the same calculation across multiple Measures
Take the below data model as an example: Let's say we want to calculate the average quantity of items any given customer (Account) purchases in a single order, based on all their past orders. In order to get AvgQtyPerOrder for a given Account, I simply need to divide their total quantity by their total orders. To calculate this using DAX, I have a few options.

### Option A: All calculations in one measure

AvgQtyPerOrder A =
DIVIDE (
SUM ( SalesOrderDetails[Qty] ),
DISTINCTCOUNT ( SalesOrderDetails[Order Number] )
)

### Option B: Break calculations into three smaller measures

Total Qty =
SUM ( SalesOrderDetails[Qty] )

Total Orders =
DISTINCTCOUNT ( SalesOrderDetails[Order Number] )

AvgQtyPerOrder B =
DIVIDE ( [Total Qty], [Total Orders] )

As you can see in the image below, both options return the same result: Option A is great because it's transparent and I can easily see exactly what calculations are happening within the Measure, but it's not exactly easy to read, and it's not how my brain works when authoring formulas. I personally find it easier to break the DAX into bite size chunks.

Option B gives us those bite sized chunks and when all formulas for each measure are viewed side by side like this, it's much easier to digest.

It's also possible to go on to use [Total Qty] or [Total Orders] in other measures, without needing to rewrite the formula for each measure. For example, we might use [Total Orders]  to calculate the total number of customers (Accounts) who have purchased something from us:

Total Accounts B =
COUNTROWS ( FILTER ( Account, [Total Orders] > 0 ) )

The danger with using Option B is that we lose that transparency and [Total Orders] is now masked in a Measure name. Without checking the formula for [Total Orders] we can't be 100% certain what [Total Accounts B] is actually doing.

Okay, so we can do Option A instead, right?

Total Accounts A =
COUNTROWS (
FILTER ( Account, DISTINCTCOUNT ( SalesOrderDetails[Order Number] ) > 0 )
)

All we've done is replace [Total Orders] with its definition DISTINCTCOUNT ( SalesOrderDetails[Order Number] ) so we should get the same result, right?

WRONG! Here's the result we get when we place are two measures in a matrix with Product Name: We can see that Option B is giving us the correct result of only the accounts who bought that product, and the Total gives the number of Accounts who have bought anything. Option A simply gives the total number of Accounts in the Accounts table for all rows in the matrix.

# WHY does it matter if we use a measure inside a measure, or simply define the measure instead?

The answer is due to the Context Transition that happens when we use DAX filter functions.

• FILTER
• ALL
• ALLEXCEPT
• CALCULATE
• etc.

## DAX Context

DAX has two contexts that we must ALWAYS take into consideration when authoring DAX formulas:
• Row Context
• Filter Context
When authoring MEASURES, we are always working within the current Filter Context provided by the data model, the visuals, slicers, and report level filters. When authoring COLUMNS, we work with the Row Context provided by the table. And of course, there's lots of cross-over too, like when:
• using Iterators (such as SUMX) within a MEASURE to change the Filter Context to a Row  Context of the Table defined in the DAX expression
• using CALCULATE within a COLUMN to change the Row Context of the data model table to a Filter Context that would be present in a MEASURE used within a report matrix or table visual containing the same data
• using table Filter Functions (such as FILTER) within a MEASURE to change the Filter Context to a Row Context of the Table defined in the DAX expression
We call that cross-over Context Transition

## Context Transition with filtering functions

Recall, we're still trying to figure out why the following MEASURES give 2 different results when used in a matrix with Product[Name]. Total Accounts A =
COUNTROWS (
FILTER ( Account, DISTINCTCOUNT ( SalesOrderDetails[Order Number] ) > 0 )
)

Total Accounts B =
COUNTROWS ( FILTER ( Account, [Total Orders] > 0 ) )

Note, these measures are being used inside a FILTER() function. The FILTER function requires two arguments:
FILTER(<Table>, <Filter>)

The Table as its first argument applies a Row Context to whatever expression is in the <Filter> argument. We know that Row Context applies in calculated COLUMNS.

To see what's going on in our two MEASURES, we're going to take a quick look at some calculated COLUMNS in order to simulate the Context Transition applied by the FILTER function.

Both Option A and B are applying a FILTER on the Account table, so let's try jumping into the Account table and create a couple of calculated COLUMNS to see the difference. The difference between Option A and Option B was how to calculate Total Orders:

Total Orders A = DISTINCTCOUNT ( SalesOrderDetails[Order Number] )

Total Orders B = [Total Orders]

Here's the result in the calculated COLUMNS in Account table: Option A using DISTINCTCOUNT provides the same result for every row in the table. This should come as no surprise, we know not to use aggregate functions (such as COUNT) within a calculated column, as it doesn't provide the correct context.

Option B using the [Total Orders] measure interestingly provides a different result for each row in the table. It does this because the MEASURE provides a Filter Context and our data model relationships allow this transition to happen.

The same thing happens within our original MEASURES; when we use the [Total Orders] measure, we get the context transition we're looking for. When we use DISTINCTCOUNT, we get incorrect Row Context.

## Mystery solved!

So, in summary, we can now update our beginner rationale for [Measure] reference inside Measures with the more complex rationale:

Use a [Measure] inside another Measure in order to:
• Refer to the same calculation across multiple Measures
• Apply a Context Transition when using filtering functions

## BONUS: Context Transition with CALCULATE

Just for fun, we can take this one step further and add an option C into the mix. Let's start with a review of CALCULATE and what it does. From Microsoft Docs regarding CALCULATE:

Definition: Evaluates an expression in a context that is modified by the specified filters.
Remarks: If the data has been filtered, the CALCULATE function changes the context in which the data is filtered and evaluates the expression in the new context that you specify. For each column used in a filter argument, any existing filters on that column are removed, and the filter used in the filter argument is applied instead.
Okay, so we can use CALCULATE instead of a MEASURE to achieve the desired result with greater transparency of our calculation.

Note that the below calculated COLUMN in the Account table gives the correct numbers, just as using the [Total Orders] measure.

Total Orders C =
CALCULATE ( DISTINCTCOUNT ( SalesOrderDetails[Order Number] ) ) So, if we substitute the expression for Total Orders C into our original Measure, we should get the correct numbers:

Total Accounts C =
COUNTROWS (
FILTER (
Account,
CALCULATE ( DISTINCTCOUNT ( SalesOrderDetails[Order Number] ) ) > 0
)
) And we do get the correct numbers! CALCULATE enables us to change the context of the Total Accounts measure and achieve the complex results we're looking for. @AllisonKennedy - Great job, I really like this article. It is an interesting topic and I'm not sure the best practice for this kind of thing is set in stone yet. I can see pros and cons to the various approaches although I think the general mantra is to code things once if possible. But, as you point out, that can lead to obscurity and it can lead to weird, unexpected results as well because of the context transitions that occur. While the context transitions in this case are of benefit, they can also cause unexpected results and make things nearly impossible to troubleshoot.

It is interesting that if you switch all of your relationships to Both, your Total Account A measure actually returns the correct results. With them set as Single, you can still get the correct results in a single measure without using CALCULATE by doing this:

``````Total Accounts D =
VAR __OrdersIDs = DISTINCT('SalesOrderDetails'[Order Number])
VAR __Table = FILTER('SalesOrder',[Order Number] & "" IN __OrdersIDs)
RETURN COUNTROWS(DISTINCT(SELECTCOLUMNS(__Table,"Accounts",[Account ID])))``````

I am personally not a fan of CALCULATE. I think it is overused, can obfuscate what is really going on and can cause problems when people do not really understand what it is doing behind the scenes. My DAX Cookbook is over 500 pages and I don't think I used CALCULATE a single time. But we all have our preferences and quirks! @AllisonKennedy - Great job, I really like this article. It is an interesting topic and I'm not sure the best practice for this kind of thing is set in stone yet. I can see pros and cons to the various approaches although I think the general mantra is to code things once if possible. But, as you point out, that can lead to obscurity and it can lead to weird, unexpected results as well because of the context transitions that occur. While the context transitions in this case are of benefit, they can also cause unexpected results and make things nearly impossible to troubleshoot.

It is interesting that if you switch all of your relationships to Both, your Total Account A measure actually returns the correct results. With them set as Single, you can still get the correct results in a single measure without using CALCULATE by doing this:

``````Total Accounts D =
VAR __OrdersIDs = DISTINCT('SalesOrderDetails'[Order Number])
VAR __Table = FILTER('SalesOrder',[Order Number] & "" IN __OrdersIDs)
RETURN COUNTROWS(DISTINCT(SELECTCOLUMNS(__Table,"Accounts",[Account ID])))``````

I am personally not a fan of CALCULATE. I think it is overused, can obfuscate what is really going on and can cause problems when people do not really understand what it is doing behind the scenes. My DAX Cookbook is over 500 pages and I don't think I used CALCULATE a single time. But we all have our preferences and quirks! Thanks @Greg_Deckler for your thoughts. Glad to hear I'm not alone in seeing the pros and cons of both, and not sure if it will ever be set in stone. Time will tell!

You bring in a couple extra considerations that I skillfully glossed over in this post with variables and cross-filter direction, both each deserve their own post.

I don't disagree with you on CALCULATE - it is definitely overused, but that's a tricky one. CALCULATE is deceptively much easier to read for a beginner (especially Excel users with no coding background) than variables or other options. That doesn't mean it should be used though.

As you say, we all have our preferences and quirks. In terms of your Total Accounts D, why did you choose

[Order Number] & ""
over
FORMAT([Order Number],"")
or any other option. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that, or if that's just another preference. @AllisonKennedy - Oh, that's just the easiest way for me to convert from text to number or number to text. I tend to use & "" to convert a number to text and + 0 to convert text to a number. I like the simplicity of it versus bringing in another function. Then again, I tend to not use DATEDIFF for day level calculations and prefer ([Date1] - [Date2]) * 1.  But that's an old habit picked up back in the day when DATEDIFF couldn't handle negative numbers. Used to drive me crazy.

I guess I like to do things with arithmetic operations and such or the minimal amount of unnecessary functions as I guess I just figure they are more efficient. However, I've never sat down and proved that out.

I agree with you actually regarding CALCULATE, it's easier/more intuitive for people new to DAX to write it/understand it but it will eventually cause them grief because 99 times out of 100 they don't really understand what it is doing. So they end up using it everywhere. Sort of like VALUES, that's the other one that drives me up the wall! 🙂 This is a good article @AllisonKennedy and can highlight issues when using measures within measures, and comes back somewhat I think to the result of using EARLIER (or better yet, VAR/RETURN constructs) when using formulas/functions instead of measures.

One question. You said this: It is my understanding that only CALCULATE and CALCULATETABLE do context transition. I go out of my way to avoid the CALCULATE() function, as @Greg_Deckler seems to do as well, and similarly, avoid using measures within measures, becuase as you pointed out, that wraps a hidden CALCULATE() around that measure reference. For small data sets I suppose it doesn't matter, but for larger ones, that context transition can be expensive. And there is the readability. I'd rather read 1 10 line measure than have to hunt through 3-4 3 line meaures to see what is going on, but that is personal preference. It also means I cannot reuse code easily and if I want to change something, I may have to change it in multiple places.

Which is what is great about Power BI. If there is one way to do something, there can be 3-4 ways to do it! @edhans  Thanks for your reply. To answer your question, I guess what I was trying to say is that the FILTER function provides a Row Context, which is unexpected in a Measure, so acts as a context transition of sorts.

Power BI and DAX do indeed have many ways to get the result you're after and I'm on a journey to try to marry the simplest solution with the best practice or most efficient solution, but even each of those often have different options depending on who you ask. Variables for example are a concept that I don't cover in intro DAX lessons, but really nothing about DAX is simple is it?

Top Kudoed Posts
Latest Articles