Hi Mike,
I'm not sure if I've fully understood your question, but just in the case.
All aggregate functions have an scope associated with them. If none is
specified, the default is used.
So, if you drop the Amount field, i.e., in the TABLE footer, RS is assuming
you want to sum all table items.
Thus
Sum(Fields!Amount) is equivalent to Sum(Fields!Amount, "table1")
If you do the same in the GROUP footer
Sum(Fields!Amount) is equivalent to Sum(Fields!Amount, "table1_group1")
In consequence, what I've understood you're trying to do is the default
behavior.
I do not understand your statement about "reference both datasets in the
same page" because this is quite straight, too.
Could you elaborate this a bit more, please?
BTW, are you using Filters on the table data regions?
Best regards,
Jordi Rambla
SQL Server MVP (Reporting Services)
SolidQualityLearning
"Mike Harbinger" <MikeH@Cybervillage.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:uzYTwof$FHA.3864@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
[quoted text, click to view] >I have a batch accounting process that moves a payment (check)
> from the original invoices where it was applied to a new set of
> invoices.
>
> I am trying to build a report that will list, for a given batch, the
> original and new invoices.
>
> Approach 1:
> I tried using a single query and 2 report tables with a single group
> in each. The table grouping correctly lists each invoice once but because
> the query is running against 2 sets of invoices it is returning multiple
> rows per invoice so the grouping total is overstated.
> Is there a way to show in the group footer, just the total of the
> displayed
> items in the report table and not of all values returned in the query?
>
> Approach 2:
> I also tried using 2 Datasets for the original/new invoices. This
> allows me to have each query return the correct number of invoices.
> But I cannot find a way to reference both data sets on the same page
> either in separate report tables or within the same table.
>
> I know I can probably do this with a subreport but I would like to
> avoid deploying a second RDL.
>
> Can this be done?
>
> Thanks
>
>