Many-to-many relationship
How do you handle a ðšðŪðŧð-ððž-ðšðŪðŧð ðŋðēðđðŪððķðžðŧððĩðķð― in Power BI?" Every analyst knows the answer: "Use a ðŊðŋðķðąðīðē ððŪðŊðđðē." I gave that answer too. Then I ðŊððķðđð it — and ðīðžð ð°ðžðšð―ðđðēððēðđð ððŋðžðŧðī ðŧððšðŊðēðŋð. The bridge table is just the beginning. Here's what's missing ð ð️ ðŠðĩðŪð ðŪ ðŊðŋðķðąðīðē ððŪðŊðđðē ðŪð°ðððŪðđðđð ðąðžðēs It ðģðķð
ðēð ððĩðē ðŋðēðđðŪððķðžðŧððĩðķð― ðððŋðð°ðððŋðē, gives Power BI a valid join path. That's it. It does ðŧðžððĩðķðŧðī ðŪðŊðžðð ðĩðžð ðģðķðđððēðŋð ðšðžðe during aggregation. ðĨ ð§ðĩðē ððķðđðēðŧð ð―ðŋðžðŊðđðēðš A ð―ðđðŪðķðŧ ðĶðĻð () measure in a many-to-many setup leads to ðąðžððŊðđðē ð°ðžððŧððķðŧðī - the same transaction gets counted across overlapping categories. No errors, no warnings. Just ððŋðžðŧðī ðŧððšðŊðēðŋð that look completely fine. ✅ ð§ðĩðē ðģððđðđ ðģðķð
ðĶððēð― ð — ððŋðķðąðīðē ððŪðŊðđðē: resolves model structure. Necessary, but not suf...