Never less than 0

[sicSRT8]

I saw this a few weeks ago and cant find it... If i have a calc field and want to show the result as either 0 or >0 but never <0 how would i do this...

do i add the not equal to <0 in the calculation?

my calc is set as text as I like the format better than number.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Guest

[comment]

Use the Max() function.

[sicSRT8]

I have never used max before how does it look with field 1 - field 2 = never <0

[comment]

Simple:

Max ( 0 ; Field1 - Field2 )

[sicSRT8]

If that states never less than 0 what would never greater than a 100 would look like.

[comment]

Min ( 100 ; Field1 - Field2 )

[sicSRT8]

thank you

[sicSRT8]

Is it possible to add a remainder of Min/Max to another field?

Ex:

Field 2 = 1000

cField 3 = Min (Field 2;Field 1 - Field4)

Field 5 = Remainder of calc of field 3 over min (1000) in this case.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Guest

[David Jondreau]

I think this is what you're going for...

Max (Field 2 ; Field 1 - Field4) - Min (Field 2;Field 1 - Field4)

[sicSRT8]

What about the remainder showing up in seperate field.

Doing Max (Field 2 ; Field 1 - Field4) - Min (Field 2;Field 1 - Field4) just gives me the field 4 value.

The calc should never be greater than field 2 but everything over should appear in field 8

Edited March 24, 2009 by Guest

[comment]

Could we use more meaningful names here? Like:

Limit = 1000

cDifference = Min ( Limit ; FieldA - FieldB )

cOver = Max ( 0 ; FieldA - FieldB - Limit )

[sicSRT8]

That works perfect... thankyou!

[sicSRT8]

Actually one more... sorry Can you add a combo of saying never less than 0 and never greater than Field1 in the same calculation?

[comment]

Of course you can - and I trust by now you should be able to figure it by yourself...

[sicSRT8]

case? I have tried putting them together using and reversing them in in way i cant think of.

When I use together I get a result of 1 so that cant be right.. The only other thing I can think of is case but not sure if thats right or if im way off.

I would love to be able to answer this.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Guest

[comment]

The general idea:

Min ( Max ( LowerLimit ; n ) ; UpperLimit )

[sicSRT8]

I was close... don't worry i wont be a noob for long.. Thank you

[sicSRT8]

One more adjustment to this

Min ( Max ( LowerLimit ; n ) ; UpperLimit )

Regarding this calc. What if I have two "upper limits" and want the result never to exceed the lower of the two upper limits. Woudl I use this?

Min ( Max ( LowerLimit ; n ) ; UpperLimit; UpperLimit_2 )

It appears to be working but not sure if I will get errors with it later on due to diff type of values.

[comment]

It should work the way you have it. You can see it's correct by reducing:

Min ( [color:gray]Max ( LowerLimit ; n ) ; Min ( UpperLimit 1 ; UpperLimit 2 ) )

Min ( a ; Min ( b ; c ) ) = Min ( a ; b ; c )