Hello everyone,
Urgent help required!
I am facing a problem where issue numbers are increasing automatically, even though issue IDs are unique. Please find the snapshots for reference and help me resolve this issue as soon as possible.
Required Output as below,
However, it now appears as shown in the screenshot below.
Best,
Vaibhav.
Hello @Vaibhav.narwade,
That is interesting. I am curious if you are getting duplicates for the id and error grouping. If you use distinct count instead of count, does it give you the correct values?
Hi @Kelseykl,
This is just the field name. Please ignore the field’s name.
As you can see, errors are grouped, but the value of “errors” has increased automatically.
Best,
Vaibhav
@Vaibhav.narwade, I see. It is difficult to deep-dive without seeing the data. I would recommend putting all of the columns into a table visual to see the entire dataset and try to pin point where the 6 and 3 count are coming from. I am guessing that a combination with some other columns (from the joins) may be causing the count to increase when applying the grouping seen in your screenshots, but again its hard to say without seeing the data.
If the entire dataset looks like this when you put all of the coulmns into the table:
ID | Error Name | external_column_1 | internal_column_2
114346 | Check Design… | A | 1
114346 | Check Design… | A | 2
114346 | Check Design… | A | 3
114346 | Check Design… | B | 4
114346 | Check Design… | B | 5
114346 | Check Design… | B | 6
114346 | Check Introdu… | A | 1
114346 | Check Introdu… | A | 2
114346 | Check Introdu… | A | 3
Then when you group by ID and Error Name with a count you would get:
ID | Error Name | external_count
114346 | Check Design… | 6
114346 | Check Introdu… | 3
Even though there are only 2 external variables (A and B) for the first row, and 1 external variable (A) for the second row. If the internal_column_2 wasn’t joined to the table (in this example) then you would get the following:
ID | Error Name | external_column_1
114346 | Check Design… | A
114346 | Check Design… | B
114346 | Check Introdu… | A
ID | Error Name | external_count
114346 | Check Design… | 2
114346 | Check Introdu… | 1
If this is the case, then I would recommend using a distinct count to get the count you are looking for, or double checking that the final transformed dataset is reflecting as expected.
Hope this helps!
Hi @Kelseykl,
I’m sending you a sample table to help enhance your understanding. This includes the data after the table joins.
@Vaibhav.narwade, thank you for sharing! Are “Appering Values” and “Required Output” columns aggregates? Also, are there other columns not included in this visual at the moment (not including the red redacted column)?
Hi @Kelseykl,
The required output field is a standard, unaggregated field that displays values without any joins. However, when a left join is applied, it reacts by providing values based on the “Appearing values” field.
The “Appearing values” field is an older field derived from the external error table, but its behavior has changed after join.
There are no other fields.
Hello,
Could you please assist me with this issue?
Best,
Vaibhav.
Hi @Vaibhav.narwade, in the screenshot you provided here, is this a screenshot from QuickSight in the Analysis or dashboard?
If so, then it looks like you are using a table to show “Appering Values” and “Required Output” and their corresponding totals, but please correct me if I am wrong. For deep diving purposes can you move “Appering Values” and “Required Output” from the value field well to group by field well, as seen here:
This will help us see what the pre-aggregate field values are, and potentially a spot we can work backwards from.
Hi @Kelseykl,
The snapshot I shared with you is from the analysis. Currently, I have been using the following calculated field for the error count:
max({errorCount}, [{Job Id}]).
There are multiple conditions for the error count, such as date, status, and method. I would like to incorporate these conditions into the calculated field.
In the table this is a kind of supporting field, so it has to be work independently from another field.
However, I am now seeking a more robust solution for this.
Hi @Vaibhav.narwade, are you still experiencing the incorrect count discrepancy? If so, can you please clarify which column ( “Appering Values” and/or “Required Output”) uses the calculation you provided: max({errorCount}, [{Job Id}])
Hi @Kelseykl,
Thank you for your ongoing guidance; it has been incredibly beneficial to me, especially while working under tight deadlines. I truly appreciate your support. Regarding the calculated field you suggested, I want to let you know that I am already utilizing it—please find the reference attached.
Best,
Vaibhav Narwade.
