Skip to Content

Hierarchy doubles node total after fold up another node

Hello Experts,

I have a problem with a hierarchy based on Bex (BW7.4) in BI 4.2 SP3 P3. It is a normal report without any sophistication. The hierarchy is indendet for showing summations on cost elements.

Now I’ve observed the following behavior. I expand a node and contract it afterwards then a summary of a other node on the same level changes. It does not just change it doubles. The only way to made it undone or to avoid that behavior in advance is to fold up the whole hierarchy.

Is this known allready by anyone of you. I don’t know if there is a way to fix that. I also transported the document to SP4, but the problem stay’s the same.



Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Get RSS Feed

2 Answers

  • Best Answer
    Aug 10, 2017 at 03:15 PM

    Hi Sven,

    There was a defect in earlier versions of BI 4.1 causing doubled hierarchy node values in WebI. It is tracked under the following SAP Note:
    2172500 - Incorrect values are displayed when expanding a hierarchy through the context menu "Hierarchichal navigationDefault level expansion2”

    The workaround was to check both the options “Show rows for which all measure values = 0”, “Show rows for which the sum of measure values = 0” in Format Table.

    If you are facing this issue with one document only, it may be a report design issue.

    If you can reproduce the same with new reports as well, I'd suggest to log an incident for it.


    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Hi Bence,

      that's it. Actually, I should have known. Lately we have had often problems with that table settings in interaction with sum values, but never in combination of a hierarchy. That was bit confusing.

      Thx a lot



  • Aug 08, 2017 at 11:55 AM


    Is the hierarchy containing linked nodes ?



    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Hi Koen,

      We re-build the complete document. Everything is exactly the same. It seams like the problem has disappeared. If not more than this document are involved in these kinda problems, maybe it can be a solution (not a good but better as nothing :-) ).

      First thank you for your effort.