|
|
Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 11/20/07 22:53
AF (bscinc@Yahoo_NoSpam.com) writes:
> When I added some additional columns, the sale for the same office
> went to over $9 Million. When I analyzed this further, I found all
> offices in the region were being returned for the second report, and
> thus I ended up with the sales for all of the regions sales.
>
> What I am really confused about is how using the exact same filter, a
> simple report can show one number and then by adding some facts or
> columns my sales went up. (and I did confirm character by character
> we are using the same filter.)
>
> Is this explainable based on some principle of SQL I am unfamiliar
> with?
>
> One explanation I received from IT, who is too busy to look at my
> problem, is that by adding additional columns, I essentially asked our
> SQL generator to set up a larger join than I expected.
>
> If this were true, wouldn't the filter still eliminate records that
> don't meet the filter requirements?
>
> I suspect the SQL generator applied the filter at the wrong spot. I
> tried looking at the SQL: code, but it is very complicated.
>
> So I am turning to this forum to see if anyone can think of a logical
> explanation that would allow SQL to in effect return a larger dataset
> than my original report.
It's of course impossible to debug a tool that I have never seen.
I can think of lots of reasons, including user errors on your
part, errors in the tool you use, or in the data model you access.
If I understood your story correctly, the second report rendered the
filter on office void and useless. That's some kind of clue, but enough
to say "Aha!".
You could at least post the queries, to give us something to work with.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|