userelationship vs CROSSFILTER

[hargel]

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

[v-ljerr-msft]

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

[hargel]

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

[v-ljerr-msft]

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