I have a custom report type, it is a with/without report to do a vaguely exclusion scenario.

We have:

Account Custom Object - involves a date and a numerical count

Made a matrix on a with/without basis running from Account to Custom Object.

In the matrix - if I put Account as Row, Date as column and a sum of numerical as the meat - I get columns for the dates fine, but I also get a column of - that sits at the front of the Matrix.

Date NOT EQUAL TO [blank] doesn't get rid of this, any suggestions on what might?



You don't need separate Record Types for "with" and "with or without" scenarios, "with or without" is enough. This was needed couple years ago until "cross filters" were introduced(*).

Here's "Accounts with or without Contacts" in my Developer Edition, grouped by Contact's created date. You can see the null column where Account doesn't have any Contacts:

enter image description here

A cross filter (use the dropdown next to "Filters: Add" button) can be used to select only Accounts with Contacts:

enter image description here

And finally if you want to say see only Contacts from 2007 you can use the filter on the cross filter, not the main date selector.

enter image description here

(*) There still might be some performance considerations depending on what type of JOIN will SF have to make so it's not like the choice is totally meaningless.

  • 1
    One hundred months later... I shall have a look at this! Got distracted by having a baby... – 44f May 29 '14 at 10:28
  • I'm not complaining at all, thx for coming back ;) Seeing that you've posted this question in July... :D – eyescream May 29 '14 at 10:55

The only way I know to get rid of the column is to change the report type to be accounts with custom object records. If you use with or without you get the column.

  • Yeah. That removes the ability to have exclusion type reporting. That is fair enough though, a limitation is a limitation. – 44f Jul 29 '13 at 7:54
  • If you need exclusion type reporting create another report type of with or without. We have several instances of report types in our org that are essentially the same except for this difference – ITMANHAH Jul 29 '13 at 22:48
  • So one with, one with/without, and make it a joined report? – 44f Jul 30 '13 at 9:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.