2 Replies Latest reply on Nov 26, 2013 10:20 PM by Alex Blakemore

# Is there a way to avoid displaying a row for each day in the attached workbook?

For this example, consider a data set that has one row for each day over the span of several months with two columns: date and balance. Think of the balance as the daily account balance. I'm trying to make a summary table that shows the min,max,avg, starting and ending balances for each month. min/max/avg are simple of course. For the starting and ending balances, I added a few simple table calcs. Those table calcs only work if the view has a row for each day -- which defeats the purpose of a simple summary.

Is there a good solution?

See the tabs (left to right) in the attached workbook. I'm trying to make a view that looks like the tab named "Goal" - which currently uses some calculated fields with faked out values to show what I'm trying to achieve. The caption on the last tab describes the problem a bit better.

Any help would be appreciated. It seems like there should be a simple solution.

• ###### 1. Re: Is there a way to avoid displaying a row for each day in the attached workbook?

Hi Alex,

Below calculations will provide you the 1st day and last day value of each month.

Opening Balance

If [date]=datetrunc('month',[date]) then [balance] end

Closing Balance:

1 of 1 people found this helpful
• ###### 2. Re: Is there a way to avoid displaying a row for each day in the attached workbook?

Thanks Indumon,

Your solutions solves the immediate problem I'm trying to address without using table calculations at all. Excellent.

But I would still be interested to know if there is a simple solution using table calculations. I put together this example for two reasons: it's a simpler version of a problem a colleague is facing on real data (so your solution handles that well), but also to experiment with some aspects of table calculations that I still find surprising even after using them for some time.

So I'm curious whether there is a simple way to get this effect with table calculations (I suspect there must be), even if the solution without table calculations works fine.