Behaviour of SEQUENTIAL parameter in RANK function

Hi All,

We have a requirement to sequence items in a export and we've been using the RANK function to achieve that in a similar way that is listed in several posts in the community (example: https://community.anaplan.com/t5/Anaplan-Platform-Discussions/COUNTIF-How-to-add-sequence-numbers-within-groups-of-repeating/m-p/41335#M4333)

However, when applying the simplest version of the formula as in "RANK ( 1 , DESCENDING , SEQUENTIAL )" to a module I'm not getting the sequence as normally displayed for a specific list, but some order which might be related to the creation order.

When I export the information from an Anaplan unfiltered view the result of this formula I get the result below:

item sequence.JPG

Given the above I'd like to clarify the following:

- Is the SEQUENTIAL in the ORDER function related to a display order or to some internal index in the list? If it is to the display order what could be wrong with the simple logic/extraction above?

- If SEQUENTIAL is not about display sequence, what would be a reasonable way to get this sequencing in the line items as per display and not per internal index?I was considering creating a property or property module just to maintain an extra field with the sequencing I want, but I'd expect there is some way to expose that.

Let me know if something is unclear.

Cheers,

Accepted answers

ArunManickam

I understand your requirement now.

SEQUENTIAL is not giving us the display sequence, it is the order of creation of the list item itself i believe.

I think you can achieve this by a workaround process. Just a thinking, try it out.

Create a rank @ SKU level. Have the summary as MAX

Create a rank @ SKU_PARENT level.

Create a module by SKU Parent, create a lineitem as MAX RANK - get the summary of rank @ SKU level

Final rank = rank @ SKU + MAXRANK[lookup for the parent having rank-1]

Be mindful of the limitations on RANK and its performance impact.

paolovm

Hi Arun,

For curiosity, I did some further tests on this and if you reorder some items they do get reindexed so the SEQUENTIAL concepts is certainly not displaying a pure creation order either.

In any case, inspired on your approach I managed to find solution that seems to do the trick in a single module.

1. Create an "ORIGINAL ORDER" item with simplest version of the formula RANK(1,DESCENDING,SEQUENTIAL)

2. Apply to "ORIGINAL ORDER" the summary=formula (so that parents are also ordered between themselves)

3.Create a JOINT ORDERformula which is PARENT ORDER+ ORIGINAL ORDER/100

4.Create a FINAL ORDER with RANK(JOINT ORDER, ASCENDING, SEQUENTIAL)

Order Fix.JPG

Based on my findings so far, that looks to be always be valid for any hierarchy with two levels plus a total parent and it seems also feasible to expand for 3 or more levels.

Thanks for the help.

All comments

ArunManickam

Looks like the ranking is done across your SKU PARENT level. If your expectation is to produce a ranking within each SKU PARENT, you could use RANK ( 1 , DESCENDING , SEQUENTIAL, TRUE, SKU PARENT ) where SKU PARENT is a line item formatted as SKU PARENT list and with a formula parent(item(SKU)). Alternatively you could pull the parent property from a module dimension-ed with SKU level. Hope this helps.

paolovm

Hi Arun,

I think I understand your answer, but that's not what I am looking for. As per my understanding below is a comparative of what is currently happening vs. what you proposed vs. what I am after

	CURRENT	PROPOSED	DESIRED
SKU 1	1	1	1
SKU 2	2	2	2
SKU 3	3	3	3
SKU 4	4	4	4
SKU 5	5	5	5
SKU 6	6	6	6
SKU 7	7	7	7
SKU 8	8	8	8
SKU 9	9	9	9
SKU 10	10	10	10
SKU 11	11	11	11
SKU 12	12	12	12
SKU 13	13	13	13
SKU 14	14	14	14
SKU 15	15	15	15
SKU 16	16	16	16
SKU 17	17	17	17
SKU 18	18	18	18
SKU 19	19	19	19
SKU 20	20	20	20
SKU 21	21	21	21
SKU 22	22	22	22
SKU 23	23	23	23
SKU 24	24	24	24
SKU 25	25	25	25
SKU 26	26	26	26
SKU 27	27	27	27
SKU 28	76	28	28
SKU 29	77	29	29
SKU 30	85	30	30
SKU PARENT 1
SKU 31	28	1	31
SKU 32	29	2	32
SKU 33	30	3	33
SKU 34	31	4	34
SKU 35	32	5	35
SKU 36	81	6	36

Let me know if I misunderstood.

Regards,

ArunManickam

I understand your requirement now.

SEQUENTIAL is not giving us the display sequence, it is the order of creation of the list item itself i believe.

I think you can achieve this by a workaround process. Just a thinking, try it out.

Create a rank @ SKU level. Have the summary as MAX

Create a rank @ SKU_PARENT level.

Create a module by SKU Parent, create a lineitem as MAX RANK - get the summary of rank @ SKU level

Final rank = rank @ SKU + MAXRANK[lookup for the parent having rank-1]

Be mindful of the limitations on RANK and its performance impact.

paolovm

That looks more promising than what I've been trying so far. That or creating an ad-hoc export list.

Thanks! Will give it a go between today and tomorrow and let you know the outcome.

paolovm

Hi Arun,

For curiosity, I did some further tests on this and if you reorder some items they do get reindexed so the SEQUENTIAL concepts is certainly not displaying a pure creation order either.

In any case, inspired on your approach I managed to find solution that seems to do the trick in a single module.

1. Create an "ORIGINAL ORDER" item with simplest version of the formula RANK(1,DESCENDING,SEQUENTIAL)

2. Apply to "ORIGINAL ORDER" the summary=formula (so that parents are also ordered between themselves)

3.Create a JOINT ORDERformula which is PARENT ORDER+ ORIGINAL ORDER/100

4.Create a FINAL ORDER with RANK(JOINT ORDER, ASCENDING, SEQUENTIAL)

Order Fix.JPG

Based on my findings so far, that looks to be always be valid for any hierarchy with two levels plus a total parent and it seems also feasible to expand for 3 or more levels.

Thanks for the help.

NoahJ

Okay for anybody else encountering this behavior (of RANK formula with SEQUENTIAL parameter giving values that do not line up with the displayed order of the items) I have at least determined a few causes to this issue, which should help in potentially avoiding it.

As others have noticed, re-ordering the base-level list items (either manually or with an "Order List..." action) will cause their rank value to update, so it is not tied directly to the order the list items were initially created in:

What is happening is basically that the SEQUENTIAL formula setting assigns values in the order the list items would be if you ignored all parent connection changes. I have found a two different actions that will cause the RANK to appear "out of order", and they are:

1. Re-assigning the "Parent" value of base level items. If an item is assigned to a new parent, or the parent value is deleted causing the item to be orphaned, the item will keep it's previous RANK value, despite the item moving its display location. This occurs whether the parent value change was manual or through an import. I believe this is what occurred in the original forum post.

Triggering a "re-order" of the items will resolve this issue even if the display order doesn't change, because the backend "index" of the items is reset in accordance with their new location. You can drag and drop items manually in the list settings, or create an "Order List..." action done using the original 'Rank' line item (no new line items required). Running that action will cause the list items to be re-indexed within their new parents and the RANK values will match the display order.

The exception is if there are orphan items, as they will be placed first in number order even though they are displayed last. If orphan items are expected in your situation, then you will need to use the formula workaround described in the next section.

2. Changing the order of parent list items. If the items in the parent list are re-orderinged, the display order will update to reflect it but the RANK value will remain unchanged - thus causing "out of sync" sequential rank display that will persist even if the base level items are further re-ordered afterwards.

Because re-ordering the base level items does not resolve the issue, the "Order List..." action will not help in this case. However, I have found what I believe to be the simplest formula workaround, which resolves the issue in this situation (as well as the one above):

Create a line item called "Parent Rank" that only applies to the parent level, and set the formula to RANK(1, ASCENDING, SEQUENTIAL)
Create or locate a Parent property or line item, so that you can do a lookup to the parent value.
Create a line item called "New Rank" (or whatever fits your needs), with the formula RANK(Parent Rank[LOOKUP: Parent], ASCENDING, SEQUENTIAL)
This creates rank values that match the display order of the items
This version of the formula will assign any orphan items as the first in the number order, even though they are displayed last. If you expect orphan items in your situation, you can simply adjust the "Parent Rank" formula to make sure that all values are below 0 by subtracting an arbitrarily large number: RANK(1, ASCENDING, SEQUENTIAL) - 9999999999

Hopefully this information was helpful - I know this behavior was confusing to me, and at least understanding why it was happening put my mind to ease a bit. Hopefully the fix / workarounds will help anybody else running into this issue.

Quick Links

Can you help?

Unanswered questions

Can we disable Create page button from the UX page
I want to disable the [create page] button for the end user from the dashboard. The end user can create a page or worksheet to link to the module to edit the data. can anyone please give some suggestion? Thx…
Introducing Anaplan API Python SDK
Hey everyone, I wanted to share the Anaplan Python SDK with you. It's a Python Library that wraps all Anaplan APIs and makes it easier to interact with Anaplan programmatically. It is mostly designed with Data Integration Scenarios in mind, but it does support all APIs including ALM, SCIM, Audit, and Cloud Works. Please…
Cloudworks Big Query Integration Fail
Hello, I am receiving an 'Anaplan Upload Failed' Status Description when testing my integration with a Big Query dataset. The integration imports data from BQ to our Anaplan model. No other details given in the error log. I suspect that Cloudworks is not even picking up the file but am not sure what we did wrong on the set…