Skip to main content
Hello community, In my datamodel, the case key is BSEG.SID||BSEG.MANDT||BSEG.BUKRS||BSEG.BELNR||BSEG.GJAHR ||BSEG.BUZEI The LFB1 and the BSEG tables are linked (1:N) with the fields SID, MANDT, BUKRS and LIFNR. I have filtered my analysis as below: FILTER LFB1.SID =FC3; FILTER LFB1.MANDT =130; FILTER LFB1.BUKRS = CN01; FILTER LFB1.LIFNR = 0000115406; There are a total of 20 cases: COUNT_TABLE(BSEG) = 20. I am doing a PU_count of the BSEG cases to the LFB1. My understanding is that I should also get 20, but I get 29 ?!? PU_COUNT(LFB1, BSEG.SID||BSEG.MANDT||BSEG.BUKRS||BSEG.BELNR ||BSEG.GJAHR||BSEG.BUZEI) = 29 Do you know what could explain such discrepancy ? Thanks in advance for your help ! Clment
Hi, In PU_COUNT due to field BUZEI , System is considers all the line items of LIFNR ? My Guess - Count With and Without BUZEI. Vivek M
Hi, Thanks for your feedback. I tried to do a PU_COUNT without the BUZEI as below, but I still get 29 instead of 20. PU_COUNT(LFB1,BSEG.SID||BSEG.MANDT||BSEG.BUKRS||BSEG.BELNR||BSEG.GJAHR) = 29. What do you think ? Thanks again ! Clment
Hi, In addition, if I do a PU_COUNT_DISTINCT on the document number, I also get 29: PU_COUNT_DISTINCT(LFB1,BSEG.BELNR)=29. That basically tells me it sees 29 different document numbers. How come is it possible since the number of cases is 20 ? Thanks in advance ! Clment
Hi, Problem solved. There was a load script on the BKPF.BLART. If I delete the filter, COUNT_TABLE(BSEG) = 29 so its aligned with the PU_COUNT. Good to know though: the filters dont impact the PU functions. Thanks. Regards, Clment
Community Code of ConductAccessibility statement