Aggregate Beast Mode Filter

BABWMajorDOMO

I understand why we are not able to filter by aggregate Beast Modes - The filter must be evaluated before performing the aggregate, so filtering by an aggregate is not possible due to order of operations. 

 

This is similiar to SQL in that you cannot put an aggregate in your WHERE clause.

 

However, SQL has a way to solve for this in the HAVING clause.  Would it be possible to add a "secondary" filter for a DOMO card that would achieve the same result?  In effect, the card would first reduce the data set by what is defined in the Filter section, then perform the Beast Mode aggregate, and lastly filter by the "secondary" filter.

product_John

Thank you for submitting this idea @BABWMajorDOMO.  I am assigning to our product manager @ckwright for review.

ckwright

@BABWMajorDOMO I will have my team look at this feature. Agreed the HAVING clause would help with Aggregate beast modes.

Josh-REO

Here's what I did as an interim fix, YMMV.

 

We have a beast mode, SUM((`ListSideUnits` + `SellSideUnits`)), that would result in zero at times.  We can't use that beast mode as a filter because of the "SUM".

 

However, we can create a new beast mode, `ListSideUnits` + `SellSideUnits`, that will also result in a zero.  We CAN use that in the filter to remove results that are zero.

 

It seems to work, but if someone pokes holes in it, let me know.