Incorrect result after formula aggregation

Hi,
I need to calculate a formula based on order value.
In pseudo code what i do is (is order value <= 100 the formula1= order value else formula b = order value)
When i work on the document detail, i get good results. The issue is when i summarize the query to a level higher than document (Zone, Brand etc'). The formulas gets calculate based on the summary rows, not based on the calculations of the individual results.
I understand that saving the formulas as CKFs and setting the calculation to "before aggregation" should help, however, after trying to create the CKF, it is impossible to set the calculation mode to "Before".
Has anyone experienced this sort of issue, and knows how it can be handled? This seem to be quite a basic feature to use, and still it doesn't work for me.
Regards,
Xibi

I have same problem!
Have you solved ? If yes can you send me solution.
[email protected]
Thank in advance.

Similar Messages

Incorrect results after compressing a non-cumulative InfoCube

Hi Gurus,
In BI 7.0 After compressing the non cumulative InfoCube its showing the incorrect reference points .leis_03_bf (pintail stock moments) showing as the reference points(opening Balance) after compressing as no marker update. Due to this its showing in correct result in reporting.please suggest me .
Thanks
Naveen

Hi Nirajan,
First of all as I undestood 2LIS_03_BX is the initial upload of stocks, so there is no need of delta load for this datasource, it collects data from MARC, and MARD tables when running the stock setup in R3 and you ahve to load it just one time.
If between delta loads of 2LIS_03_BF you're loading full updates you are dupplicating material movements data, the idea of compression with marker update is that this movements affects to the stock value in the query, it's because of that when you load the delta init you do it without marker update because these movements are contained in the opening stock loaded with 2LIS_03_BX so you dont want to affect the stock calculation.
You can refer to the How to handle Inventory management scenarios in BW for more detail on the topic.
I hope this helps,
Regards,
Carlos.

Hot News: Possible incorrect results in SAP BW system

Everyone ,
We recently identified an issue in SAP ASE which potentially causes incorrect results in a SAP BW system running on SAP ASE.
The issue affects any application running on SAP ASE using optimisation goal 'allrows_dss' or a user created optimisation goal that enables 'advanced_aggregation' .
SAP BW specifies optimisation goal 'allrows_dss' for ceratin DSS queries and is affected by the issue.
SAP ERP system running on ASE are typically not affected as in SAP ERP systems typically optimisation goal 'allrwos_mix' has been configured.
Details and corrections are available in SAP note
2026328 - SYB: Incorrect results with SUM aggregation on decimal fields
We strongly suggest to implement the corrections in SAP BW as soon as possible.
With kind regards
Tilman Model-Bosch

Hi,
Yes, I am using the MDX driver.
Is there any pre-requisites of importing certain ABAP transports into SAP Server since I haven't done any? Please recommend.
Thanks,
Amogh

Exception Aggregation (Average) displaying incorrect values after EHP1 Upgr

Hi All,
Exception Aggregation (Average) displaying incorrect values after EHP1 Upgrade in our BW system
We have recently upgraded the system to EHP1. After the upgrade some of the queries where we are using Exception Aggregation (Average) started giving the incorrect values.
Eg. We are displaying three Key Figures KF1, KF2 and KF3 (=KF1 %A KF2) against Store Hierarchy. In KF3 we are using Exception Aggregation (Average) on a characteristic 0PLANT.
There are 14 rows against 0PLANT and out of those 2 rows are blank for KF1, so for KF3. When it is calculating the average of these key figures its dividing the total value by 12 instead of 14 which is not correct in our case. Earlier it was dividing the total by 14.
So in this case 'Average' and "Average of all values <>0" are behaving the same way.
Kindly provide some inputs on this.
Best Regards,
Sachin Verma
+44 7506740018

Hi,
Thanks for viewing the thread. And happy to let you know that the issue was resolved.
The solution was:
Two formulas (local) were created, one including the formula variable with replacement path for ZD1, with exception aggregation on ZD1, and the other with formula variable with replacement path for ZD2, with exception aggregation on ZD2. Both these formulas are hidden.
Another formula (local) was created for u2018time takenu2019 = formula with ZD1 u2013 formula with ZD2, with exception aggregation total on u2018ZDOCNOu2019.
For the second instance, when one requires exception aggregation on records that has multiple values for keys, a nesting of formulas can be done displaying only the ones required.
For e.g. a formula with exception aggregation on say characteristic u2018item no.u2019 can be hidden, and included in another formula for exception aggregation on characteristic u2018document no.u2019. This is a typical case where one can achieve calculation before aggregation for a calculated key figure, formula or a counter.
Hope it might help someone, and saves time and effort for a similar issue posted.
Also would like to keep this thread open for exploring better solutions.
Regards,
Vijay

Incorrect result being returned for a formula

I'm getting incorrect result for a simple formula. Changing the value of Rs is not affecting the output correctly. I am new to labview and can use some help. VI attached.
Attachments:
testformula.vi ‏21 KB

I'm getting incorrect result for a simple formula. Changing the value of Rs is not affecting the output correctly. I am new to labview and can use some help. VI attached.
Input values used:
Rp2 = -131.763
Rs2 = 0.321
Isc2= 8.21
Vmp= 26.3
Imp= 7.61
Io2= 9.735E-8
exp2= 8.404E+8
Output being shown as:
Pmax3 = 200.143
It should be Pmax3 = 192.688
Attachments:
testformula.vi ‏22 KB

BEx Query Providing Incorrect Results

I have two BEx queries that are behaving strangely.
They are providing incorrect results and I can't figure out why.
In both cases, when I save query in development under a different technical name the problem disappear.   I can't use this as a permanent solution because users insert queries in workbooks and we have portal links.
Is there a way to somehow fix these queries that
are acting strangely.
Query 1:
When run query get error message
"No roll storage space of length 120 available fro OCCURS area"
Query2:   Calculates Wrong Average
When run query:
Adding Cumulative Qty Customer Balance + Quantity Customer Movement
together.
Set Aggregation to Average
ref char Posting Period.
The avearge BEx calculates only considers Cummulative Quantity
End Customer Balance. It should consider consider Quantity Customer Movement as well.
Avg formula : ((Jan End - (.5* Jan Mov) ) + (Feb End - (.5* Feb Mov))+   (Mar End -(.5* March Mov)))/3
I have used the same methodology to calculate average with other queries and it average calculates correctly. These other queries have same InfoProvider and using the same dimensions as queries that are calculating average incorrectly.

Hi Mti
Thank you for your reply.
I have checked the details as per your suggestion:
1. KF Aggreagtion tab on Workbench Exception Aggregation is on SUM Summation.
2. RKF on The Query is on (Nothing Defined).
Is there anything else that can be checked?
Thank you

Oracle Discoverer report pulls incorrect result when scheduled.

Recently the database was migrated to 10.1.2 RAC from 9.2.0.6, so the discoverer EUL is now resides on new database.
after migration the report which pulls correct results when run interactively is pulling incorrect result when scheduled in Discoverer.
This report used sysdate and aggregate functions, i had ran the same report simultaneously( Directly in Discoverer Desktop/Plus and scheduled in discoverer), but the data retrieved in both case is not matching.
here is the query. any help is appreciated.
SELECT /*+ FIRST_ROWS */ A.SITE_ID as E175108,B."SYSTEM DESCRIPTION" as System_Prefix,
B."SYSTEM PREFIX" as System_Description,
COUNT(CASE WHEN ( TRUNC(SYSDATE)-DISCO10G.DATE_FORMAT_TEST(A.STATUS_DATE) ) < 0 THEN 1 ELSE TO_NUMBER(NULL) END) as Less_than_0_Days,
COUNT(CASE WHEN ( TRUNC(SYSDATE)-DISCO10G.DATE_FORMAT_TEST(A.STATUS_DATE) ) > 121 THEN 1 ELSE TO_NUMBER(NULL) END) as 0_to_14 Days,
COUNT(DECODE(TRUNC(( TRUNC(SYSDATE)-DISCO10G.DATE_FORMAT_TEST(A.STATUS_DATE) )/31),3,( TRUNC(SYSDATE)-DISCO10G.DATE_FORMAT_TEST(A.STATUS_DATE) ),to_number(NULL))) as 14_to_30_Days,
COUNT(DECODE(TRUNC(( TRUNC(SYSDATE)-DISCO10G.DATE_FORMAT_TEST(A.STATUS_DATE) )/31),2,( TRUNC(SYSDATE)-DISCO10G.DATE_FORMAT_TEST(A.STATUS_DATE) ),to_number(NULL))) as 31_to_60_Days,
COUNT(DECODE(TRUNC(( TRUNC(SYSDATE)-DISCO10G.DATE_FORMAT_TEST(A.STATUS_DATE) )/31),1,( TRUNC(SYSDATE)-DISCO10G.DATE_FORMAT_TEST(A.STATUS_DATE) ),to_number(NULL))) as 61_to_90_Days,
COUNT(CASE WHEN ( TRUNC(SYSDATE)-DISCO10G.DATE_FORMAT_TEST(A.STATUS_DATE) ) BETWEEN 15 AND 30 THEN 1 ELSE TO_NUMBER(NULL) END) as 91_to_120_Days,
COUNT(CASE WHEN ( TRUNC(SYSDATE)-DISCO10G.DATE_FORMAT_TEST(A.STATUS_DATE) ) BETWEEN 0 AND 14 THEN 1 ELSE TO_NUMBER(NULL) END) as 120_Days_Plus,
COUNT(TRUNC(SYSDATE)-DISCO10G.DATE_FORMAT_TEST(A.STATUS_DATE)) as Total
FROM PSTAGE.ALL_EQUIPMENT A,
( SELECT A.SITE "SYSTEM PREFIX", A.DESCRIPTION "SYSTEM DESCRIPTION", A.SITE_ID, B.SITE_DESCRIPTION, A.G2B_ID
FROM SITE_LIST A, ALL_CF_SITE_CONTROL B
WHERE A.SITE_ID = B.SITE_ID
ORDER BY 1, 3
) B
WHERE ( (B.SITE_ID = A.SITE_ID))
AND (A.EQUIPMENT_STATUS_CODE IN ('T','7'))
GROUP BY A.SITE_ID,B."SYSTEM DESCRIPTION",B."SYSTEM PREFIX"
ORDER BY B."SYSTEM DESCRIPTION" ASC ;
Thanks!

Hi sunil,
Rod is referencing the NLS parameters i.e.
Can you please let me know which NLS parameters you are referring toNLS parameters in this scenerio may be the date and language for that session.Do check out
SELECT * from NLS_SESSION_PARAMETERS
how i can check if there any differences in the NLS parameters when report is scheduled or run interactivelyI think you should run the trace file.Iam not sure about it.
It would be system_context.
Hope it helps you.
Kranthi.

Query with Cost Center Hierarchy giving incorrect results

Hi All,
I have a universe built based on BEx query on Cost Center cubes. When enabling hierarchy in BEx Query and building Web intelligence Report based on the universe, I get incorrect results. The levels of the hierarchy is incorrect, many of the cost centers are missing etc. I checked the universe and confirmed that all levels of hierarchy are generated correctly. The Lov generated for these levels are correct and I see the complete hierarchy when using the BEx Variable in Universe for filtering.
I tried the same query with Hierarchy disabled with a different universe and it is providing correct results. Not sure what I'm missing here. Any inputs regarding this is appreciated.
Thanks & Regards,
Sree

Ingo, Thanks for your suggestion. Of course, I did update the Universe after any changes in the query. Tried different query setting related to hierarchy to make it work, but didn't many any difference and I get consistently incorrect results.
One thing what I wanted to confirm is, if there is any known bug in SP 2 Fix Pack 2.7 related to hierarchies. If not, it might be me doing some thing wrong and I will look into in more detail.
Thanks & Regards,
Sree

Incorrect results for calculation based on diff dimensions - 11.1.1.5

Hello All,
OBIEE gives incorrect results when i try to perform a calculation (for eg: addition) based on 2 measures. For eg:
(Note: "->" signifies 1:M)
Rpd (Physical model & BMM): dim_fe -> dim_gl-> Fact_Legder <- Dim_param
Fact_Ledger (agg measures) -> YTD_01, YTD_02...... YTD_12 ( here 01,02...12 represent month i.e. if "Feb" selected in prompt then we need to use YTD_02 and so on for other months)
Answers: Created a report with following columns
Column Name : Formula
=================
Line Item : 'Net Profit'
Prev Yr Act: (filter("Fact Ledger"."YTD_12" using "Fact_Ledger"."YEAR"=@{pYear}{2013}-1 and "Dim_Param"."PL_Line" in ( 'Item 1','Item 2','Item 3') and "Fact_Ledger"."Code"=100)/1000) /
(filter("Fact Ledger"."YTD_12" using "Fact_Ledger"."YEAR"=@{pYear}{2013}-1 and "Dim_FE"."Item" in ( 'L1','L2','L3') and "Fact_Ledger"."Code"=100)/1000)
Curr Yr Act: (filter("Fact Ledger"."YTD_12" using "Fact_Ledger"."YEAR"=@{pYear}{2013} and "Dim_Param"."PL_Line" in ( 'Item 1','Item 2','Item 3') and "Fact_Ledger"."Code"=100)/1000) /
(filter("Fact Ledger"."YTD_12" using "Fact_Ledger"."YEAR"=@{pYear}{2013} and "Dim_FE"."Item" in ( 'L1','L2','L3') and "Fact_Ledger"."Code"=100)/1000)
Curr Yr Plan: case when '@{pmonth}{Jan}='Jan' then
(filter("Fact Ledger"."YTD_01" using "Fact_Ledger"."YEAR"=@{pYear}{2013} and "Dim_Param"."PL_Line" in ( 'Item 1','Item 2','Item 3') and "Fact_Ledger"."Code"=200)/1000)/
(filter("Fact Ledger"."YTD_01" using "Fact_Ledger"."YEAR"=@{pYear}{2013} and "Dim_FE"."Item" in ( 'L1','L2','L3') and "Fact_Ledger"."Code"=200)/1000)
when '@{pmonth}{Jan}='Feb' then
(filter("Fact Ledger"."YTD_02" using "Fact_Ledger"."YEAR"=@{pYear}{2013} and "Dim_Param"."PL_Line" in ( 'Item 1','Item 2','Item 3') and "Fact_Ledger"."Code"=200)/1000)/
(filter("Fact Ledger"."YTD_02" using "Fact_Ledger"."YEAR"=@{pYear}{2013} and "Dim_FE"."Item" in ( 'L1','L2','L3') and "Fact_Ledger"."Code"=200)/1000)
when '@{pmonth}{Jan}='Dec' then
(filter("Fact Ledger"."YTD_12" using "Fact_Ledger"."YEAR"=@{pYear}{2013} and "Dim_Param"."PL_Line" in ( 'Item 1','Item 2','Item 3') and "Fact_Ledger"."Code"=200)/1000)/
(filter("Fact Ledger"."YTD_12" using "Fact_Ledger"."YEAR"=@{pYear}{2013} and "Dim_FE"."Item" in ( 'L1','L2','L3') and "Fact_Ledger"."Code"=200)/1000)
endthe results are incorrect. Any help appreciated.
Qry generated is like
(select...
case when year=.. and pl_lin=... and code=100 then ytd_01,
case when year=.. and pl_lin=... and code=100 then ytd_03,
case when year=.. and pl_lin=... and code=100 then ytd_04,....,
case when year=.. and pl_lin=... and code=200 then ytd_01,
case when year=.. and pl_lin=... and code=200 then ytd_03,
case when year=.. and pl_lin=... and code=200 then ytd_04,....,
from...
where ... year in (2013-1,2013) and pl_line('Item1,'Item2','Item3') or fe.item('l1','l2','l3') and code in (100,200)... ) D1
(select
case when 'Apr'='Jan' thne d1.c1 when 'Apr'='Feb' then d1.c2......
from D1
Regards..
Shruti

See if this explains it better for my crosstab with page items of Vendor Number 1234.
Vendor 1234
Dc Nbr 1 2 4 AAAA
Sum Invoice Amt 1387.04 300.82 327.29 2015.15
Sum Cost 44.86 57.43 25.54 127.83
Sum Advanced Cost 102.44 0 0 102.44
Sum Consolidation Cost 30.37 0 0 30.37
Sum Allowance Amt 27.74 6.02 6.54 40.30
Net Freight Cost 149.93 51.41 19 220.34
Freight Percent 10.81 17.09 5.81 ****
As stated before, Frieght Percent is a calculation I created in Discoverer that looks like this :
( NVL(Sum Cost,0)+NVL(Sum Advanced Cost,0)+NVL(Sum Consolidation Cost,0)-NVL(Sum Allowance Amt,0) )/NVL(Sum Invoice Amt,0)*100
Column AAAA was created in Discoverer using Sum of field and show to the right.
What I need is for the **** to be the correct calculation for the totals in column AAAA. If I use do a total for Freight Percent using the Cell Sum I get 33.70., what I want is it to be 10.93, which is (127.83 + 102.44 + 30.37 - 40.30)/2015.15*100.
If I use an Average Total row for Freight Percent, I get 11.24 which is 33.70 / 3 (the 3 would be the # of dc nbr's)
I did start with using the detail level data to create this crosstab. Then I made a new version and used the SUM data. I seem to get the same results but am still having issues with the one **** value.
Hopefully this explains it better.
Thanks for the ideas so far.

BEx - formula aggregation

Hello all,
I have a BEx problem which does not seem to be unique, but as yet I have not found a solution.
I have a query u2013 developed in frontend version 3.5 u2013 which is not showing required results at an aggregated level.
Consider the following columns: Material1, Material2, Total
and the following rows: Value1, Value2, Value3
where Value3 is the following formula: If Value1=0 then Value2, else Value1
Value1 200 0 200
Value2 100 150 250
Value3 200 150 350
However, I do not want to have Material in the default view, therefore I see the following values:
Value1 200
Value2 250
Value3 200
In this case I want Value3 to equal 350 not 200.
The query calculates the formula based on the aggregated data, but I want it to use the detailed data. The example above is the problem in itu2019s simplest form, my query is actually a little more complex than this. I am not able to use u2018Before Aggregationu2019 on a Calculated Key Figure, because my formula is u2018too complexu2019. I have also tried various combinations of u2018Calculate Results asu2026u2019
The query is based on a multiprovider and remodelling the backend would be complex, if it is even possible. I would like a frontend solution.
Any suggestions/help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Simon.
Edited by: Simon Evans on Jul 21, 2008 3:11 PM

Hi,
Thanks for viewing the thread. And happy to let you know that the issue was resolved.
The solution was:
Two formulas (local) were created, one including the formula variable with replacement path for ZD1, with exception aggregation on ZD1, and the other with formula variable with replacement path for ZD2, with exception aggregation on ZD2. Both these formulas are hidden.
Another formula (local) was created for u2018time takenu2019 = formula with ZD1 u2013 formula with ZD2, with exception aggregation total on u2018ZDOCNOu2019.
For the second instance, when one requires exception aggregation on records that has multiple values for keys, a nesting of formulas can be done displaying only the ones required.
For e.g. a formula with exception aggregation on say characteristic u2018item no.u2019 can be hidden, and included in another formula for exception aggregation on characteristic u2018document no.u2019. This is a typical case where one can achieve calculation before aggregation for a calculated key figure, formula or a counter.
Hope it might help someone, and saves time and effort for a similar issue posted.
Also would like to keep this thread open for exploring better solutions.
Regards,
Vijay

Incorrect result between maintain master data and bex query, how can i fix?

Hi ALL,
i get some messages from the users there is incorrect result between SAP R/3 and Report on BW. i controlled the monitor and i saw there was a job for 0CUSTOMER_ATTRIBUTE that it finish correctly but the processing it was only in PSA, i started the full update immediately from PSA into Data Targets and is finished correctly. after when i control the content of the 0CUSTOMER (right click maintain master data) i get the correct attribute result that match the data in SAP R/3, but the problem is when i execute a query Bex on this master data it will not return the same attributes data.
Can SomeBody Help please
Bilal

hi,
For any master data attributes loaded you will have to run "Attributes Change Run" for that.Execute for Master data 0CUSTOMER.
The same is avilable in rsa1->Tools(top menu)->apply hierarchy/attribute run.
hope it helps,
regards,
Parth.

Furmula displaying incorrect result at Hierarchy Node level

Hi Experts,
I have created query which is using simple formula as Amount = Price * Quantity.
The query is using hierarchy on Material.
When I drill down to the lowesr level (leaf node) the formula is showing correct result.
But at all the node levels its displaying incorrect result.
Ex.
Mataterial 1 Rate = 4 Quantity = 10
Maaterial 2   Rate = 3 Quantity = 10
In hierarchy both the se materials are under same node (Parent node) say Node 1
The query output is
Material                Amount
Node 1                140   (7 * 20)
    Material 1          40   (4 * 10)
    Material 2          30   (3 * 10)
It should be
Material                Amount
Node 1                 70
    Material 1         40
    Material 2         30
Please suggest how can this be achieved.
Regards
SSS

Hi SSS,
Have you ben able to resolve this?? I am also facing the same issue..If you have resolved pls reply.
Regards,
Tapan

SPL Screening Incorrect Results

Hi Guys
We are on the process of finalizing the Configurations for the Name and Address Screening procedure in GTS.
We have the below settings maintained :-
Control Structure
Search Term Origin - Parallel Comparison from Partner/Sanc List
Condition Elimination Enabled
Detail Control
Done on Name, City and Street Name
Name -
Linkiing operator 'AND'
Relational Operator - Comparison Index in Keyword from Address are Identical
Similarities -
Search Term 65%
Parallel Comparison between SPL/Partner
Originating 65%
Number of Terms in each SPL or Partner
City
Linkiing operator 'AND'
Relational Operator - Comparison Index in Keyword from Address
Similarities -
Search Term 100%
Parallel Comparison between SPL/Partner
Originating 100%
Number of Terms in each SPL and Partner
Street
Linkiing operator 'OR'
Relational Operator - Comparison Index in Keyword from Address
Similarities -
Search Term 65%
Parallel Comparison between SPL/Partner
Originating 65%
Number of Terms in each SPL or Partner
Address Fields Assigned
ADDR_GROUP
CITY1
COUNTRY
NAME1
NAME2
NAME_TEXT
STREETCODE
The above setting is not very efficient, its bringing out incorrect results, any tips or suggestions on what to change and improve?
Thanks
Carl

Hi Carl
After you changed the customising did you reset the buffers and regenerate the index (SAP note 865433)
1. Reset Buffers - /SAPSLL/SPL_CUS_APP_BUFF_RESET
2. Generate Comparison Terms for SPL - /SAPSLL/SPL_CREATE_SEARCHTERMS
3. Aggregate Comparison Terms - /SAPSLL/SPL_INDEX_CREATE
4. Generate Comparison Terms for Bus. Partners - /SAPSLL/SPL_CREATE_SEARCHTADRC
If you haven't done this, it could have caused your incorrect results.
Also just on a side note The SPL algorithm is optimized on country key. Its recommed to use country as Logical AND operator in customizing.
Hope this helps,
Regards
Ann Marie

I upgraded my 4s to 7.0.4 and now I can't access hotmail through my main mail app. When I open it a pop up says password incorrect even after I put my password in it pops up again. How do I fix this please help

I upgraded my 4s to 7.0.4 and now I can't acicess hotmail through my main mail app. When I open it a pop up says password incorrect even after I put my password in it pops up again. How do I fix this please help

After I upgraded to Mavericks I was also having this message when I tried to update. There was a previous post about this problem which offered this simple solution which worked for me:
b0n0b0
Re: Recently upgraded to Maverick from SnowLeopard. Unable to get updates from App store.
Mar 15, 2014 9:05 AM (in response to Terence Devlin)
Got it! Thanx. What I did was go to my account, check that they had my new ID and Password which they did, then hit reset button. All fixed.

I run Windows 8.1. I have received the result after several attempts uninstalling and reinstalling iTunes, "ITunes was not installed correctly. Please reinstall iTunes. Error 7 (Windows error 127)" What can I co?

I run Windows 8.1. I have received the result after several attempts uninstalling and reinstalling iTunes, "ITunes was not installed correctly. Please reinstall iTunes. Error 7 (Windows error 127)" What can I do? to solve the problem. Tried to clean the windows registry, no change. Very frustrating. Any advice is much appeciated.
Thanks.

Try the following user tip:
Troubleshooting issues with iTunes for Windows updates

Incorrect result after formula aggregation

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for