Will, you'll need to post a packaged workbook (twbx). The one you've posted (twb) doesn't have any data in it.
Thanks a lot for pointing that out. I have now updated the workbook file....Thanks again for the help
What worksheet are you talking about? The Fiscal Year All Data? If so, I don't understand the -100% comment nor the part about the year forward the calcs seem to be working as designed.
How would you like the grand total to be different than it is?
Thanks for the response. Sorry I couldn't state my question more eloquently.
All the worksheets are giving me a wrong Grand Total. I read your blog posts on the grand totals and can't seem to replicate it well. If you look at the Fiscal Year all data the grand total is including data where there is none. After 96,919 in Nov. under Diff. in receipt amounts, the fields are blank because there is no data but the grand total is including the data there as if the difference is 100% of previous years total. I even setup a null to zeros type of field and got 0's where there are no numbers now and the grand total was still off. Hopefully I explained it better this time thanks again.
I would like the grand total to only include the numbers you can see in the data sheet. So just totaled from July to November.
1 of 1 people found this helpful
Ok, I think I see where the confusion is. From what you wrote, it looks like you want the Grand Total row for FY13 to only do a comparison to July through Nov data from FY12, since there's only July through Nov data for FY13?
As you've figured out, that's not how Tableau Grand Totals work, they are a computation at a coarser level of detail, so the Payment Fiscal Period is effectively removed from the Rows Shelf and Tableau is totaling all payments for FY12 and using that total for the FY13 calcs.
It's definitely possible to do this via the Custom SQL technique I wrote about in part 3, I'm not sure whether another method would work, I'd probably go with the Custom SQL technique unless data volumes got really huge because it would be a lot more maintainable, but even then you could do a bunch of aggregations in the SQL to keep volumes down.
Thanks for the help