Behaviour of SEQUENTIAL parameter in RANK function

[paolovm]

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-wi...)

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:

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,

[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 · Accepted solution]

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 · Accepted solution]

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)

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.