=?Utf-8?Q?Pivot_Table_=E2=80=93_Date_Ordering_-_fi?=

External Since: Apr 10, 2004 Posts: 1

Pivot Table – Date Ordering

I analyse data for the NHS where the financial year apr-mar is use (all data within a month is ‘aggregated’ to the first of the month – ie all events during May are shown with the data 1st may).

In Analysis Manager and Data View I can show months in the desired apr-mar order. However, when the same data is presented via Pivot Table (v10) the month order ‘reverts’ to jan-dec (despite being sorted in the dimension design to be ordered by key value).

How do I analyse/sort to show the apr-mar order in Pivot Table view?

An extension to this requirement is to show the year (financial year) as 2002/2003, 2003/2004,2004/2005 an so on.

The special status of a time dimension seems to work well in Analysis Manager but fails to follow through to Pivot Table – am I correct in this assumption.

Many thanks

Stephen Carr

External Since: Sep 04, 2003 Posts: 88

Forwarding to OLAP group

--
Peter Kim
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

"lonsdale" <anonymous.TakeThisOut@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6E2EABC0-7AE4-4857-88EE-0944BD197708@microsoft.com...
> Pivot Table - Date Ordering
>
> I analyse data for the NHS where the financial year apr-mar is use (all
data within a month is 'aggregated' to the first of the month - ie all
events during May are shown with the data 1st may).
>
> In Analysis Manager and Data View I can show months in the desired apr-mar
order. However, when the same data is presented via Pivot Table (v10) the
month order 'reverts' to jan-dec (despite being sorted in the dimension
design to be ordered by key value).
>
> How do I analyse/sort to show the apr-mar order in Pivot Table view?
>
> An extension to this requirement is to show the year (financial year) as
2002/2003, 2003/2004,2004/2005 an so on.
>
> The special status of a time dimension seems to work well in Analysis
Manager but fails to follow through to Pivot Table - am I correct in this
assumption.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Stephen Carr
>