Earn the coveted Fabric Analytics Engineer certification. 100% off your exam for a limited time only!
Hi all,
What's the Power BI equivalent of Tableau's "show only available values" in a filter?
Main table:
Day | Account | Value |
1 | A | 0.1 |
2 | A | 0.2 |
3 | A | 0.3 |
1 | B | 0.4 |
2 | B | 0.5 |
Dates table:
Day | Alias |
1 | 1 |
2 | 2 |
3 | Latest |
Say I have slicers for Main[Account] and Dates[Alias] - I want the Dates[Alias] slicer to only show "1" and "2" when I set the Main[Account] slicer to "B".
This seems like a very basic feature so I'm sure it must be achievable somehow?
Solved! Go to Solution.
I am not totally sure I understood your problem, but when I add two slicers - One for Account and one for Day I get the expected result (attached in the screenshot)
Or did you mean do you wanted to add a slicer and then upon the slicer limit it to a few defined options?
@nirvana_moksh: Sorry, turns out my example was too simple - I've updated the original question now!
Just change the filtering to 'Both' in the relationship side
An easy shortcut is creating related columns from the lookup tables within transaction table. If you then choose the related columns from the transaction table as slicers everything will automatically cross filtered inside the transaction table so by default you will only see the lookup variables that exist inside the transaction table.
Ah, perfect - that does the trick!
I have worked with Tableau and I have loved it a lot, but Power BI is pretty awesome and you will surely find all functionality in it 🙂
If your data model is like your example then the slicers will cross filter. However, if you have two slicers each from a different dimension table connected both in a single filter relationship to a fact table they will not crossfilter.
This is because when one filter is applied it goes through the relationship to the fact table however as the other dimension table is on a single direction relationship the filter from the fact table will not propogate back up to the second dimension table.
The solution is either to have two way relationships between your dim and fact tables, this can have strange and unintended consquences so this is not advised.
Or you can try change the model such as merging dim tables or denormalising them into the fact table.
Hmm, sound accurate - for me I have an extra Dates table that just has the distinct dates (i.e. one-to-many). Filtering for an Account in the main table will not back-propagate to the Dates table.
Does that mean the only solution is the very unclean approach of adding my date aliases ("Most recent" etc.) to my main table (and hence to millions of rows) instead of using a separate Dates table?
User | Count |
---|---|
140 | |
113 | |
104 | |
77 | |
63 |
User | Count |
---|---|
135 | |
126 | |
110 | |
70 | |
61 |