Earn a 50% discount on the DP-600 certification exam by completing the Fabric 30 Days to Learn It challenge.
Hi,
I was after the opposite to USERELATIONSHIP and came up with CROSSFILTER and type = None. I.e. I want to have an active relationship for most measures but in one measure have it inactive. Is this the way to go? Any drawbacks?
BR
Martin
Hi @hargel,
I'm not sure I can understand your scenario totally. Could you be more precisely with your requirement by posting your table structures(including the relationships) with some sample/mock data and the expected result? So that we can better assist on this issue.
Regards
Thanks for your reply!
I don't think I have an issue really, my measure seems to work as intended. This was more of a "did I miss something question" or "is this really a good idea".
To put the scenario in its basic parts. I have a model with an active relationship between two tables because this is what I want in 90 % of the cases. However in one scenario what I'm after is really to set the relationship to inactive. I understand that I could probably solve this using "ALL" etc. in some way. But the CROSSFILTER with type = None looks like it does just what I want, i.e. it could be named INACTIVATERELATIONSHIP.
But I was just waiting for someone to prove this wrong 🙂
BR
Martin
Hi @hargel,
To put the scenario in its basic parts. I have a model with an active relationship between two tables because this is what I want in 90 % of the cases. However in one scenario what I'm after is really to set the relationship to inactive. I understand that I could probably solve this using "ALL" etc. in some way. But the CROSSFILTER with type = None looks like it does just what I want, i.e. it could be named INACTIVATERELATIONSHIP.
Usually, I use ALL function in this scenario. I never thought there is another way to do it. After a few tests and research, it seems to me that using CROSSFILTER is also a good way to go.
Regards