Report Builder- Nested If Statements with Multiple Values to Categorize - if-statement

I am working in Report Builder and having issues creating a calculated field to categorize data from another column.
To simplify and explain my goal:
I’d like to create a calculated field with 4 distinct categories and I’m assuming the best way to do that is a nested if statement. Feel free to correct me if that is not the best function to use.
Category 1: Let’s just call it “A”
Category 2: “B“
Category 3: “C“
Category 4: “D”
Values from the other column:
Simplified Example-
Numbers 1-10 would be category A,
numbers 11-20 would be B,
numbers 21-30 would be C,
numbers 31-40 would be category D
However in my particular case the values aren’t nicely organized in those 10 consecutive ranges. For example, I have a 33 value that would be an A category, which makes it so I can’t use the greater than or less than operators.
Having explained my issue and goal- my question is how to write the syntax for an if statement when I have multiple discrete values that aren’t neatly organized in consecutive numerical order?
I hope this question makes sense.
I tried using just one argument to get it going and got stumped when it didn’t work:
Iif(field data = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,33, “A”, “Other”)
It doesn’t work with the commas and I tried inserting the Or Operator between each value and that didn’t work either.
Thanks for any syntax tips you can provide.

There are a few ways you can do this.
Option 1: In your database design
The best way, in my opinion, is to do this in your database. Create a table with these values/category pairs and simply join to that whenever you need to include the categorised view of the data.
Option 2: In your report design
If you really have to do this in the report design, then using SWITCH() will probably be easier, certainly to read.
Given your second example, and expanding it a little you could do something like this...
=SWITCH(
(Fields!myData.Value >=1 AND Fields!myData.Value <=10) OR Fields!myData.Value = 33, "A",
(Fields!myData.Value >=11 AND Fields!myData.Value <=15) OR Fields!myData.Value = 34 OR Fields!myData.Value = 39, "B",
True, "Other"
)
SWITCH uses pairs of values, when the first value in the pair evaluates to true the seconds value in the pair is returned.
The final True, "Other" acts like an else. If not previous criteria matched, then the final pair always evaluates to true so "Other" would be returned.

Related

How to automatically feed a cell value from a range of values, based on its matching condition with other cell value

I'm making a time-spending tracker based on the work I do every hour of the day.
Now, suppose I have 28 types of work listed in my tracker (which I also have to increase from time to time), and I have about 8 significance values that I have decided to relate to these 28 types of work, predefined.
I want that, as soon as I enter a type of work in cell 1 - I want the adjacent cell 2 to get automatically populated with a significance value (from a range of 8 values) that is pre-definitely set by me.
Every time I input a new or old occurrence of a type of work, the adjacent cell should automatically get matched with its relevant significance value & automatically get populated in real-time.
I know how to do it using IF, IFS, and IF_OR conditions, but I feel that based on the ever-expanding types of work & significance values, the above formulas will be very big, complicated, and repetitive in the future. I feel there's a more efficient way to achieve it. Also, I don't want it to be selected from a drop-down list.
Guys, please help me out with the most efficient way to handle this. TUIA :)
Also, I've added a snapshot and a sample sheet describing the problem.
Sample sheet
XLOOKUP() may work. Try-
=XLOOKUP(D2,A2:A,B2:B)
Or FILTER() function like-
=FILTER(B2:B,A2:A=D2)
You can use this formula for a whole column:
=INDEX(IFERROR(VLOOKUP(C14:C,A2:B9,2,0)))
Adapt the ranges to your actual tables in order to include in the second argument all the potential values and their significances
This is the formula, that worked for me (for anybody's reference):
I created another reference sheet, stating the types of work & their significance. From that sheet, I'm using either vlookup, filter, xlookup.Using gforms for inputting my data.
=ARRAYFORMULA(IFS(ROW(D:D)=1,"Significance",A:A="","",TRUE,VLOOKUP(D:D,Reference!$A:$B,2,0)))

Excel Alternative to nested IF

I have a couple of rather large nested if functions in my spreadsheet. It sure would be nice to have an alternative method. Problem is I'm using a wildcard (*) in my lookup because the source text has slight variations (date for example).
For example, if my list of data contains:
VENMO PAYMENT 220828 1022093447487 BRENDA HOSPY
VENMO PAYMENT 220813 1031323447487 BRENDA HOSPY
I want these to show in an adjacent column of cells as just Venmo
Currently my if function in that second column of cells is:
=IF(COUNTIF($F10,"*APPLE.COM/BILL*"),"AP",
IF(COUNTIF($F10,"IIA VOYA*"),"VOYA",
IF(COUNTIF($F10,"VENMO PAYMENT*"),"Venmo",
IF(COUNTIF($F10,etc...
This works fine but quickly gets unruly as more things get added.
I've spent a great deal of time searching for functions and processes that would make this easier, or at least more compact, but I can't find a way with typical functions like vlookup or index/match.
If I've explained this in a comprehensible fashion perhaps you've seen or experienced a similar situation and could offer a suggestion. It would be appreciated!
I'm not opposed to using a programming function.
I've looked at, and for, various Excel functions or combinations with no luck on my own or online.
I have created a structure as below
Formula present in B2 is as below
=IFERROR(INDEX($F$2:$F$9,MIN(IF(COUNTIF(A2,"*"&$E$2:$E$9&"*")>0,ROW($E$2:$E$9),9999999)-1)),"---")
Enter it as an Array Formula using Ctrl+Shift+Enter
It will search all the strings present in column E in A2 when found will return all the row numbers of column E where there is a match, i have then used min to get the first one, and if not found it will return 9999999, and as the data is starting from row 2 i have added -1 to make it equal to the data index. after that i have called the index to search value present at that index in column F. and at the end used the if error function to show --- where no match was found and 999999 was returned.

How can I resolve INDEX MATCH errors caused by discrepancies in the spelling of names across multiple data sources?

I've set up a Google Sheets workbook that synthesizes data from a few different sources via manual input, IMPORTHTML and IMPORTRANGE. Once the data is populated, I'm using INDEX MATCH to filter and compare the information and to RANK each data set.
Since I have multiple data inputs, I'm running into a persistent issue of names not being written exactly the same between sources, even though they're the same person. First names are the primary culprit (i.e. Mary Lou vs Marylou vs Mary-Lou vs Mary Louise) but some last names with special symbols (umlauts, accents, tildes) are also causing errors. When Sheets can't recognize a match, the INDEX MATCH and RANK functions both break down.
I'm wondering how to better unify the data automatically so my Sheet understands that each occurrence is actually the same person (or "value").
Since you can't edit the results of an IMPORTHTML directly, I've set up "helper columns" and used functions like TRIM and SPLIT to try and fix instances as I go, but it seems like there must be a simpler path.
It feels like IFS could work but I can't figure how to integrate it. Also thinking this may require a script, which I'm just beginning to study.
Here's a simplified example of what I'm trying to achieve and the corresponding errors: Sample Spreadsheet
The first tab is attempting to pull and RANK data from tabs 2 and 3. Sample formulas from the Summary tab, row 3 (Amelia Rose):
Cell B3: =INDEX('Q1 Sales'!B:B, MATCH(A3,'Q1 Sales'!A:A,0))
Cell C3: =RANK(B3,$B$2:B,1)
Cell D3: =INDEX('Q2 Sales'!B:B, MATCH(A3,'Q2 Sales'!A:A,0))
Cell E3: =RANK(D3,$D$2:D,1)
I'd be grateful for any insight on how to best index 'Q2Sales'!B3 as the correct value for 'Summary'!D3. Thanks in advance - the thoughtful answers on Stack Overflow have gotten me this far!
to counter every possible scenario do it like this:
=ARRAYFORMULA(IFERROR(VLOOKUP(LOWER(REGEXREPLACE(A2:A, "-|\s", )),
{REGEXEXTRACT(LOWER(REGEXREPLACE('Q2 Sales'!A2:A, "-|\s", )),
TEXTJOIN("|", 1, LOWER(REGEXREPLACE(A2:A, "-|\s", )))), 'Q2 Sales'!B2:B}, 2, 0)))

Ordering by sum of difference

I have a model that has one attribute with a list of floats:
values = ArrayField(models.FloatField(default=0), default=list, size=64, verbose_name=_('Values'))
Currently, I'm getting my entries and order them according to the sum of all diffs with another list:
def diff(l1, l2):
return sum([abs(v1-v2) for v1, v2 in zip(l1, l2)])
list2 = [0.3, 0, 1, 0.5]
entries = Model.objects.all()
entries.sort(key=lambda t: diff(t.values, list2))
This works fast if my numer of entries is very slow small. But I'm afraid with a large number of entries, the comparison and sorting of all the entries will get slow since they have to be loaded from the database. Is there a way to make this more efficient?
best way is to write it yourself, right now you are iterating over a list over 4 times!
although this approach looks pretty but it's not good.
one thing that you can do is:
have a variable called last_diff and set it to 0
iterate through all entries.
iterate though each entry.values
from i = 0 to the end of list, calculate abs(entry.values[i]-list2[i])
sum over these values in a variable called new_diff
if new_diff > last_diff break from inner loop and push the entry into its right place (it's called Insertion Sort, check it out!)
in this way, in average scenario, time complexity is much lower than what you are doing now!
and maybe you must be creative too. I'm gonna share some ideas, check them for yourself to make sure that they are fine.
assuming that:
values list elements are always positive floats.
list2 is always the same for all entries.
then you may be able to say, the bigger the sum over the elements in values, the bigger the diff value is gonna be, no matter what are the elements in list2.
then you might be able to just forget about whole diff function. (test this!)
The only way to makes this really go faster, is to move as much work as possible to the database, i.e. the calculations and the sorting. It wasn't easy, but with the help of this answer I managed to actually write a query for that in almost pure Django:
class Unnest(models.Func):
function = 'UNNEST'
class Abs(models.Func):
function = 'ABS'
class SubquerySum(models.Subquery):
template = '(SELECT sum(%(field)s) FROM (%(subquery)s) _sum)'
x = [0.3, 0, 1, 0.5]
pairdiffs = Model.objects.filter(pk=models.OuterRef('pk')).annotate(
pairdiff=Abs(Unnest('values')-Unnest(models.Value(x, ArrayField(models.FloatField())))),
).values('pairdiff')
entries = Model.objects.all().annotate(
diff=SubquerySum(pairdiffs, field='pairdiff')
).order_by('diff')
The unnest function turns each element of the values into a row. In this case it happens twice, but the two resulting columns are instantly subtracted and made positive. Still, there are as many rows per pk as there are values. These need to be summed, but that's not as easy as it sounds. The column can't be simply be aggregated. This was by far the most tricky part—even after fiddling with it for so long, I still don't quite understand why Postgres needs this indirection. Of the few options there are to make it work, I believe a subquery is the single one expressible in Django (and only as of 1.11).
Note that the above behaves exactly the same as with zip, i.e. the when one array is longer than the other, the remainder is ignored.
Further improvements
While it will be a lot faster already when you don't have to retrieve all rows anymore and loop over them in Python, it doesn't change yet that it results in a full table scan. All rows will have to be processed, every single time. You can do better, though. Have a look into the cube extension. Use it to calculate the L1 distance—at least, that seems what you're calculating—directly with the <#> operator. That will require the use of RawSQL or a custom Expression. Then add a GiST index on the SQL expression cube("values"), or directly on the field if you're able to change the type from float[] to cube. In case of the latter, you might have to implement your own CubeField too—I haven't found any package yet that provides it. In any case, with all that in place, top-N queries on the lowest distance will be fully indexed hence blazing fast.

Is it possible to detect and handle string collisions among grouped values when grouping in Hadoop Pig?

Assuming I have lines of data like the following that show user names and their favorite fruits:
Alice\tApple
Bob\tApple
Charlie\tGuava
Alice\tOrange
I'd like to create a pig query that shows the favorite fruit of each user. If a user appears multiple times, then I'd like to show "Multiple". For example, the result with the data above should be:
Alice\tMultiple
Bob\tApple
Charlie\tGuava
In SQL, this could be done something like this (although it wouldn't necessarily perform very well):
select user, case when count(fruit) > 1 then 'Multiple' else max(fruit) end
from FruitPreferences
group by user
But I can't figure out the equivalent PigLatin. Any ideas?
Write a "Aggregate Function" Pig UDF (scroll down to "Aggregate Functions"). This is a user-defined function that takes a bag and outputs a scalar. So basically, your UDF would take in the bag, determine if there is more than one item in it, and transform it accordingly with an if statement.
I can think of a way of doing this without a UDF, but it is definitely awkward. After your GROUP, use SPLIT to split your data set into two: one in which the count is 1 and one in which the count is more than one:
SPLIT grouped INTO one IF COUNT(fruit) == 0, more IF COUNT(fruit) > 0;
Then, separately use FOREACH ... GENERATE on each to transform it:
one = FOREACH one GENERATE name, MAX(fruit); -- hack using MAX to get the item
more = FOREACH more GENERATE name, 'Multiple';
Finally, union them back:
out = UNION one, more;
I haven't really found a better way of handing the same data set in two different ways based on some conditional, like you want. I typically do some sort of split/recombine like I did here. I believe Pig will be smart and make a plan that doesn't use more than 1 M/R job.
Disclaimer: I can't actually test this code at the moment, so it may have some mistakes.
Update:
In looking harder, I was reminded of the bicond operator and I think that will work here.
b = FOREACH a GENERATE name, (COUNT(fruit)==1 ? MAX(FRUIT) : 'Multiple');