Multi-Row Formula tool Group By doesn't work when testing for Not Equal

tl;dr When I use the Group BY option in the Multi-Row Formula tool it works when I check to see of this row value is equal to that row value. But it fails when my condition is checking to see if this row value is not equal to that row value. I fixed it by adding in an equivalency check on the column I am grouping by.

I'm working with utilities data where I have service points that provide water, natural gas, or electricity. I then have meters attached to service points. The service points are fairly immutable but the meters can and do change.

I have three scenarios, the second of which is (was) giving me conniption fits.

BADGE_NBR = the meters

SP_ID = the service points

not liking not equal.png

Scenario #1 - Some automatic meter readers were going into an infinite loop and needed a firmware update. So the meter badge number didn't change but a removal and installation had to be recorded to reset the beginning meter read value back to 0. This works as I would expect. Formula is thus:

iif([BADGE_NBR] = [Row+1:BADGE_NBR], 1, 0)

Scenario #2 - For whatever reason, a meter has been replaced with a different one. Here, the Multi-Row Formula tools seems to care about the Group By. I've used these formulas:

iif([BADGE_NBR] != [Row-1:BADGE_NBR], 1, 0)

iif([BADGE_NBR] != [Row+1:BADGE_NBR], 1, 0)

Scenario #3 - Meters can be and are used at different service points. Unlikely to appear sequentially in my data but I faked it here to test for it, just in case.

I can fix it by adding in the field I'm grouping by:

iif([SP_ID] = [Row-1:SP_ID] and [BADGE_NBR] != [Row-1:BADGE_NBR], 1, 0)

This then works whether I have the Group By checked or not.

I'm using 2018.1 but have duplicated this in 11.7. Is this a bug or am I only as smart as a box of sidewalk chalk? (I am quite open to the latter being the case.)

Thank y'all,

David

not liking not equal.yxmd

Common Use Cases

Accepted answers

BenMoss

Although I love the comprehensiveness of this post, I'm struggling to truly understand the problem.

Are you asking essentially why you are getting so many trues when you are expecting much less?

Let's take this statement for example:

iif([BADGE_NBR] != [Row-1:BADGE_NBR], 1, 0)

where the result is:

the reason we get so many true values is because we are evaluating against the previous line. When you do a group by you are essentially chunking your data. This is where the 'values for rows that doesnt exist' is key. This is the value that line 1 of each of your chunks is going to evluate against.

Hence when you do a badge != badge-1 you get so many trues, in those instances you are doing a lot of badge != 0 of course badge !=0 so therefor its returning you true.

I hope this makes sense?

Ben

multirow.png

All comments

BenMoss

Although I love the comprehensiveness of this post, I'm struggling to truly understand the problem.

Are you asking essentially why you are getting so many trues when you are expecting much less?

Let's take this statement for example:

iif([BADGE_NBR] != [Row-1:BADGE_NBR], 1, 0)

where the result is:

I hope this makes sense?

Ben

multirow.png

David-Carnes

Ben:
"Are you asking essentially why you are getting so many trues when you are expecting much less?"

Yes

"I hope this makes sense?"

OK, in scenario 1, the Group By works because it detects the same meter badge number for SP_ID = 1885034706. It does not flag scenario #3, badge number W106059 because the SP_IDs are in different groups.

But the whole thing falls apart when I look for the negative match.

Before the stream hits the tool the data is already sorted by SP_ID ascending, [begin meter date] ascending, [end meter date] descending, so my addition of the [SP_ID] = [Row-1:SP_ID] condition causes it to work.

Best,

David

David-Carnes

OK, I thought I tried this earlier but missed this. If I use Set to Values of Closest Valid Row for the situation where I need a negative match (meter_replaced) it works.

If I set the same in the tool using the positive match (firmware_reset) it breaks.

I'm going offline for a bit. I have a newbie Alteryx user coming here for a weekly training , get him up to speed, session.

Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

David

Quick Links

This months top contributors

atcodedog05 19458

Qiu 15866

binu_acs 15708

MarqueeCrew 13708

apathetichell 13703