Matrix SSAS dimension/hierarchy order problem

I have a have a relatively simple SSAS cube that I'm trying to display in a matrix but the order of the data is not correct. The rows of the matrix are a time hierarchy and the query designer produces the correct MDX and when I run the MDX in the data tab, the order is correct. However in the report preview tab, the order is incorrect. Specifically, the time hierarchy looks like this Year-Month-FullDate. The report is ordering the Months like this 1,10,11,12,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. I ran the MDX query in Sql Studio and the order is correct, and I used Excel to consume the same cube and it produces the correct order.

The report is somehow treating the Month like character data instead of numeric, how do I fix this?

It sounds like your MDX query only retrieves the Member_Caption (which is the string label representation), but not the Member_Value property (which is the value representation with the original data type).

For example:

SELECT NON EMPTY { [Measures].[Sales Amount] } ON COLUMNS, NON EMPTY { ([Due Date].[Month Number Of Year].[Month Number Of Year].ALLMEMBERS * [Due Date].[English Month Name].[English Month Name].ALLMEMBERS ) } DIMENSION PROPERTIES MEMBER_CAPTION, MEMBER_UNIQUE_NAME, MEMBER_VALUE ON ROWS FROM [Adventure Works DW] CELL PROPERTIES VALUE, BACK_COLOR, FORE_COLOR, FORMATTED_VALUE, FORMAT_STRING, FONT_NAME, FONT_SIZE, FONT_FLAGS

Note that the .Value field property of RDL expressions always maps to the Member_Caption property value for dimensions (the member caption is always a string!). The additional Member_Value intrinsic dimension property is not mapped directly to any of the predefined RDL extended field property names. Therefore, in order to access the MEMBER_VALUE property in the report, you have to use the so-called field property collection syntax in the matrix group expression and sort expression to get the numeric value for the dimension property and specify the property name exactly as defined in the MDX query above (the property name is case-sensitive in this case):
=Fields!Month_Number_Of_Year("MEMBER_VALUE")

Additional information about MDX intrinsic member properties can be found here: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms145528.aspx

-- Robert

|||

Robert - that worked perfectly. Thanks a bunch!

To anyone else in the same situation, to get to the matrix group expression and sort expression right-click the matrix object in the report designer and select Properties. Goto the Groups tab and then select dimension member in question and click the Edit button. This brings up another window, goto the Sort tab and enter the expression.

Master-Detail Searching, best approach?

Hello, I'm relatively new to using full-text search. I'm working on a =
document management program.
Basically my data it stored in two tables, [Documents], and =
[DocDetails], with a one-to-many relationship. [Documents] contains a =
record for each document stored, and [DocDetails] has many records =
concerning a document, each with an associated text field.
I'm really after the ability to search on a query '"jane" and "doe"', =
where I would be able to pull from [Documents] all documents that have =
matching records in [DocDetails]. My problem comes in how to query =
[DocDetails], some records would have "jane" in them, and some records =
would have "doe" in them, never would you see one record in [DocDetails] =
having both terms in the same text field. (I think this kinda negates =
using a strategy where the query has an "and" or "or" in it.
Maybe there is a way around this, I just haven't thought of. Right now, =
the only thing I can this is to split up my queries into only one word, =
and join the results.
If someone could give me a nudge in the right direction I'd appreciate =
it!
Thanks!,
--Michael
Raterus,
The below code was posted recently in regards to a "Parent - Child"
relationship, and should also work with your "Master - Detail" searching.
Tables:
contact(contact_id, name)
role(role_id, description)
contact_role (contact_id, role_id)
How can I find all contact where the search string is in the contact name
and or roles description? This is the quick and simplest way. You can
rewrite this query using outer-joins. The code is not tested. So expect some
syntax errors.
select * from contact where contactid in
(select contactid from contact_role where contactid in (select key from
containstable(contact,name,'search string') or
roleid in (select key from containstable(role,description,'search
string'))
You should be able to alter the above code to fit your tables. If you have
an alternative approach or additional questions, please post them here..
Regards,
John
"Raterus" <raterus@.spam.org> wrote in message
news:OI#yuv1NEHA.556@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Hello, I'm relatively new to using full-text search. I'm working on a
document management program.
Basically my data it stored in two tables, [Documents], and [DocDetails],
with a one-to-many relationship. [Documents] contains a record for each
document stored, and [DocDetails] has many records concerning a document,
each with an associated text field.
I'm really after the ability to search on a query '"jane" and "doe"', where
I would be able to pull from [Documents] all documents that have matching
records in [DocDetails]. My problem comes in how to query [DocDetails],
some records would have "jane" in them, and some records would have "doe" in
them, never would you see one record in [DocDetails] having both terms in
the same text field. (I think this kinda negates using a strategy where the
query has an "and" or "or" in it.
Maybe there is a way around this, I just haven't thought of. Right now, the
only thing I can this is to split up my queries into only one word, and join
the results.
If someone could give me a nudge in the right direction I'd appreciate it!
Thanks!,
--Michael
|||Actually that was the first post I read before I posted, it helped =
initally. I've adapted it a little bit and have come up with this. =
It's a mess, I know it :-) It is working how I want it to though, the =
only problem I forsee, is how do I have different queries for a =
different number of search terms. Using this strategy I'll have to have =
a different query if they search for "jane doe john brown" rather than =
just "jane doe" This is all for an asp.net web application, so it =
wouldn't be that difficult for me to create my own query on the fly and =
send it over, but if there is a better way, I'd love to hear it!
select * from documents where docID in
(
select t1.docID
from (
select docID
from docdetails
where ddID in
(
select [key]
from containstable(docdetails,value,'"jane"')
)
) as t1 inner join=20
(
select docID
from docdetails
where ddID in
(
select [key]
from containstable(docdetails,value,'"doe"')
)
) as t2 on t1.docID =3D t2.docID
)
"John Kane" <jt-kane@.comcast.net> wrote in message =
news:%235axQM2NEHA.3348@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Raterus,
> The below code was posted recently in regards to a "Parent - Child"
> relationship, and should also work with your "Master - Detail" =
searching.
>=20
> Tables:
> contact(contact_id, name)
> role(role_id, description)
> contact_role (contact_id, role_id)
>=20
> How can I find all contact where the search string is in the contact =
name
> and or roles description? This is the quick and simplest way. You can
> rewrite this query using outer-joins. The code is not tested. So =
expect some
> syntax errors.
>=20
> select * from contact where contactid in
> (select contactid from contact_role where contactid in (select key =
from
> containstable(contact,name,'search string') or
> roleid in (select key from containstable(role,description,'search
> string'))
>=20
> You should be able to alter the above code to fit your tables. If you =
have
> an alternative approach or additional questions, please post them =
here..
>=20
> Regards,
> John
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> "Raterus" <raterus@.spam.org> wrote in message
> news:OI#yuv1NEHA.556@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hello, I'm relatively new to using full-text search. I'm working on a
> document management program.
>=20
> Basically my data it stored in two tables, [Documents], and =
[DocDetails],
> with a one-to-many relationship. [Documents] contains a record for =
each
> document stored, and [DocDetails] has many records concerning a =
document,
> each with an associated text field.
>=20
> I'm really after the ability to search on a query '"jane" and "doe"', =
where
> I would be able to pull from [Documents] all documents that have =
matching
> records in [DocDetails]. My problem comes in how to query =
[DocDetails],
> some records would have "jane" in them, and some records would have =
"doe" in
> them, never would you see one record in [DocDetails] having both terms =
in
> the same text field. (I think this kinda negates using a strategy =
where the
> query has an "and" or "or" in it.
>=20
> Maybe there is a way around this, I just haven't thought of. Right =
now, the
> only thing I can this is to split up my queries into only one word, =
and join
> the results.
>=20
> If someone could give me a nudge in the right direction I'd appreciate =
it!
>=20
> Thanks!,
> --Michael
>=20
>