Based on the limited information, to sort based on the total sales across three years (assuming there aren't any other years in the data) all you need to do is sort the customer (asc/desc) based on field "sales" with aggregation as SUM.

Something like:

then you can sort the year by same

I feel stupid, but rank by running total doesn't make sense to me. Running total is based on how you have sorted the data (rank, so to speak).

Also, do you want it grouped by year or by customer. What I mean is, for each year, sort customers or for each customer, sort the years.

If you export that as excel and randomize the customer names, I can see what I can do.

So let me re-iterate:

Based on the data, customer 3 is most valuable.

That's how the customers should be sorted grouped by year?

Does this look right?

Hi Chase,

How about this?

Customer 3 has the most sales total, so Customer 3 is rank one, and so on and so forth.

Used calc:

Total Sales for Customer

{FIXED [Cust Name]: SUM([Sales])}

Added Index as a Discrete Dimension to Rows, set up as follows:

I've attached my workbook for reference.

Please mark/let me know if this was helpful/answered your question.

Thank you,

John

This is a novice question, not a critic, but is there a benefit to introducing the INDEX() function and sorting it by AGG([Total Sales by Customer]) (an additional measure that you created) versus just sorting the Customer on SUM(Sales) which gave the exact same result? I know I grouped it by year and you grouped by customer, but in essence, it's the same result.

I could as easily group by the customer by swapping customer and year pill.

Hi Subodh,

Fair question!

What I posted was the first thing that came to mind that I thought might answer Chase's question.  All things being equal, I think having less calculations to mange is generally desirable, so I would probably use your solution if it's accomplishing the same goal.

Thank you for your reply. Like I said, I'm new and trying to learn. Appreciate it.