Hi,
I am starting to use reporting services and I created a report that takes 4 parameters for a Filter on the dataset.
The idea is the create snapshot nightly and then display the report filtered based on parameters to users.
I'd like that the filter be ignored for a parameter if the parameter is passed as NULL,
Right now I defined it this way :
Left =Fields!RegionCode.Value Operator = Right =IIF(IsNothing(Parameters!RegionCode.Value),Fields!RegionCode.Value,Parameters!RegionCode.Value)I do this for the 4 parameters that are passed, if they are null, make then equals to the field.
I was wondering if there is a way to ignore the whole parameter all together, I would guess it'll be faster to execute.
Thanks
One way would be to use this in your stored procedure or query, with coalesce...
eg. AND COALESCE(@.RegionCode,[RegionCode]) = [RegionCode]
That way you're not bringing the data into the report and then filtering it out, you're filtering at the source.
|||No I don't want to do that,
The idea is the get ALL the data in a snapshot nightly then apply filters on the snapshot when we display to the users.
The result is that the DB will not get hammered everytime a report is run but only once at night.
So the coalesce will not work.
|||I guess you could do something then with the left side of the filter and an if statement?
If the parameter on the left side is null, then set it to 1, otherwise set it to the field. If the parameter on the right side is null, set it to 1, otherwise set it to the parameter. Then 1=1 and it will ignore the parameter.
Not sure if this will work but it sounds faster than comparing field to field in theory.
cheers,
Andrew
|||
Andrew - T4G wrote:
I guess you could do something then with the left side of the filter and an if statement?
If the parameter on the left side is null, then set it to 1, otherwise set it to the field. If the parameter on the right side is null, set it to 1, otherwise set it to the parameter. Then 1=1 and it will ignore the parameter.
Not sure if this will work but it sounds faster than comparing field to field in theory.
cheers,
Andrew
Thanks, I'll try something like that.
No comments:
Post a Comment