With() Statement managing Delegation
Content
In this blog, I will discuss a method that will allow the combining of non-Delegable filters with Delegable items in a way that will remove Delegation warnings and combine the process into one statement.
There are some important things to remember in this: –
- The With() statement is effectively creating a (very) temporary variable/collection within the statement which only “exists” for the life of the statement execution.
- It is not Delegable in itself, meaning that it cannot “hold” more than 500-2000 records depending on your settings (I will refer to 2,000 here).
- However, if you can isolate less than this number with Delegable filters, then any statement using the resulting data is Delegable.
- You can also use this on an entire list (no Filter) with less than 2,000 records for the purpose of removing the Delegation warning.
- NOTE: If your With() statement potentially produces more than the 2,000 records, you will not get a Delegation warning and the second filters will produce results on only the first 2,000 records matching in the With().
So how does this work?
With() can contain a single Value, a Record or a Table equally well. In this case, it is filtering a Table with a smaller Table being the output. If you look at the syntax, it is almost identical to UpdateContext().
Pre-filtering
As an example, if my list was 10,000 records, but if after Filtering to show only the Status values Planned and In Progress, the result was always less than 2,000 records, I could then use Search (a non-Delegable operator) to look for the content of Text input SearchBox.Text in both the fields FirstName andLastName. This would work perfectly, and no Delegation warning would be received.
With(
{
MyStatus:
Filter(
MyList,
Status = "Planned" ||
Status = "In Progress"
)
},
Search(
MyStatus,
SearchBox.Text,
"FirstName",
"LastName"
)
)Looking at some other non-Delegable filters, if I wanted a Count of the items with Status of In Progress
With(
{
MyStatus:
Filter(
MyList,
Status = "In Progress"
)
},
CountRows(MyStatus)
)And if I was looking for the Sum of Revenue of items with Status of Planned
With(
{
MyStatus:
Filter(
MyList,
Status = "Planned"
)
},
Sum(MyStatus,Revenue)
)Obviously, the same thing can be done with a Collection then the Filter
ClearCollect(
colStatus:
Filter(
MyList,
Status = "Planned"
)
)
Then the filter
Sum(colStatus,Revenue)But this requires a trigger when the Collection is to be done. Also I have found the With() statement resolves the data quicker than doing a Collection.
Also as mentioned, you can use this on smaller lists to remove the Delegation warning.
If my list has 1,200 records and I wanted the Sum of Expenses without a warning.
With(
{wList:MyList},
Filter(
wList,
IsBlank(MyFieldName)
)
)Bigger Collections
Expanding this further, using the “4,000 item” solution from my general Delegation blog , you can have a collection on a list up to 4,000 items that can be used with any filters.
With(
{
wAsc,
Sort(
MyList,
ID
),
wDesc,
Sort(
MyList,
ID,
Descending
)
},
ClearCollect(
colMyCollection,
wAsc,
Filter(
wDesc,
!(ID in wAsc.ID)
)
)
)Let’s take this a step further – what if I have 3,500 items of the Status “Planned” as above and I want them in a Collection for further filtering? The below will work with any size list and will extract up to 4,000 matching records.
Clear(colMyCollection);
With(
{
wDesc:
Filter(
Sort(
MyList,
ID,
Descending
),
Status = "Planned"
),
wAsc:
Filter(
Sort(
MyList,
ID
),
Status = "Planned"
)
},
Collect(
colMyCollection,
wAsc,
Filter(
wDesc,
!(ID in wAsc.ID)
)
)
)Collect all records in list
This goes the whole way (also with thanks to my colleague @Eelman for the inspiration on the concept) and can take some time to run. Also be aware of potential device (particularly mobile) limitations if the list is over about 10,000 items. A essential element in this model is that it must be run on a unique numeric identifier other than the ID (which is not Delegable for this purpose). Creating a “Shadow ID” field is generally the best way and the process is described in the Delegation discussion on this site.
There are two values to replace in the code below – the list name (SPListName) and the numeric field (SeqNoField) mentioned above. It will create a collection called colAllList (call it whatever you want).
Clear(colAllList);
With(
{
wSets:
With(
{
wLimits:
With(
{
wLimit:
Sort(
SPListName,
SeqNoField,
Descending
)
},
RoundDown(
First(wLimit).SeqNoField / 2000,
0
) + 1
)
},
AddColumns(
RenameColumns(
Sequence(
wLimits,
0,
2000
),
"Value",
"LowID"
),
"HighID",
LowID + 2000
)
)
},
ForAll(
wSets As MaxMin,
Collect(
colAllList,
Filter(
SPListName,
SeqNoField > MaxMin.LowID && SeqNoField <= MaxMin.HighID
)
)
)
)Relational LookUps
Another scenario is the fact that SharePoint is not a “relational” database, meaning that Lookups to another List are not Delegable, even if the data type and operator are both Delegable. It is common to use small (under your Delegation limit in number) “reference lists” and you might want to include a field from one of these in a Filter. The With() statement is very useful here. In the below
- The main list name is Projects
- You are wanting to add the Supervisor‘s email
- Reference list is Staff where the person’s name is StaffName
- The Email is in EmailAddress
With(
{wStaff:Staff},
AddColumns(
Projects,
"SuperEmail",
LookUp(
wStaff,
StaffName=Supervisor
).EmailAddress
)
)
This type of query is fully delegable providing your key field match is either Text or Numeric.
I hope this information has been useful. Happy Power Apping!!
19 Comments
Carl Williams
Hi Warren. Is this With statement the same as using While?
I have a flow that appends a parent record picture url with a chosen child picture. I do this by way of a yes/no toggle. So if I choose yes for one pic then that url is copied to the parent hyperlink image field as the “Item Image” type of thing. BUT, only one child photo related to the parent should obviously have it’s toggle set to true. The url would be overwritten if there was already one set but when this new one is chosen I was going to use a
While(),
With(), or
For Each() method to set any existing ‘trues’ for related to the parent item to false.
Not everyone can be a true. Only one 🙂
Cheers
CW
Warren Belz
Hi Carl,
No – With() is a Power Apps (not Flow) function and sets a (very) temporary Variable (it can be a Value, Record or Table) that is then available for reference only during the execution of that piece of code. It is a similar function in a lot of cases to using Set, UpdateContext or ClearCollect prior to the code in question, except it is far more flexible in how and where it is used.
In Power Apps, ForAll() is the “looping” function (in Flow you would use Apply to each), although it is not as powerful as the VB While/Wend or Do Until/Loop.
Isaac
This function sounds awfully familiar……………CTE! Very cool. Great article thank you for posting.
richard c
For me, this is a difficult concept to latch on to. Your responses to the Power App community are invaluable. Keep up the great work.
JRN
If the ID starts with 10000 instead of ID: 1 because the first 10k items were deleted, would setting the following work?
Clear(colAllList);
With(
{
wSets:
With(
{
wLimits:
With(
{
wLimit:
Sort(
SPListName,
SeqNoField,
Descending
)
},
RoundDown(
(First(wLimit).SeqNoField-10000) / 2000,
0
) + 1
)
},
AddColumns(
RenameColumns(
Sequence(
wLimits,
0,
2000
),
“Value”,
“LowID”
),
“HighID”,
LowID + 2000
)
)
},
ForAll(
wSets As MaxMin,
Collect(
colAllList,
Filter(
SPListName,
SeqNoField > (MaxMin.LowID-10000) && SeqNoField <= (MaxMin.HighID-10000)
)
)
)
)
Warren Belz
You do not need to do that – just use the code the way it is and it will do some empty loops until it gets to your numbers
JRN
I was trying to speed it up since the initial first 40k items were deleted so it looping through the first 20 sets with no results was taking some time before getting to actual data.
Guy Shepperd
Warren,
Thank you for this Blog! thsi concept it very hard to get a grip on, and you have broke it down very nicely.
I have tried to modify your code, but ran into some issues.
i put the question out on the community. (https://powerusers.microsoft.com/t5/Building-Power-Apps/Large-Table-in-Dataverse-Filtering-down-to-a-collection/td-p/1470199)
any help is greatly apprecaited, and if there is a suggestion on how to change the schema to better facilitate the forming of the collection, i am open to it.
Thanks
Guy
Warren Belz
Hi Guy
I have responded on the forum – in my Delegation blog are more processes for collections including a process for getting the newest nnn records.
Stuart Moore
Hi Warren, this is fantastic, is there a way of also doing a Add Columns from another large list. I have 2 lists both have the same number of rows with a 1-1 implied relationship, ultimately we will be moving our data into a Dataverse or equivalent location, but for now we are using SharePoint lists, my main list has all the key fields, the second list has the project delivery area and sub area and a field that is the same value in both lists. lists are approx 2,500 rows currently. I would like to produce a gallery or data table tat effectively combines the data (much in the same way a sql query would be used to create a view)
Warren Belz
Hi Stuart,
I am not entirely clear on your question, but AddColumns is also a “hidden” Delegation limitation (as is With). You would need to pre-filter the data so your resulting output to add the columns in under your Delegation limit.
Gus Chessman
Hi Warren,
Fantastic content in your site.
I have a question in the “4000 items” solution.
As ‘MyList’ is very wide, will the solution works as expected if rather than ‘MyList’ I use a ShowColum function within ‘MyList’?
Warren Belz
Hi Gus,
No reason it would not – ShowColumns is not Delegable, but neither is Collect.
Gus Chessman
I figured out a way which responds at ‘warp speed’ to my wide list, using filter + ShowColumns:
With(
{
wAsc:
Sort(MyList;ID);
wDesc:
Sort(MyList;ID;Descending)
}
;
ClearCollect(
MyCollection;
ShowColumns(
wAsc;
“Colum1″;”Colum2″;”Colum3”
);
Filter(
ShowColumns(
wDesc;
“Colum1″;”Colum2″;”Colum3”
);
!(ID in wAsc.ID)
)
)
)
Warren Belz
Yes – ShowColumns() will make it faster – the amount will depend on the number of fields in the list. Note that ShowColumns is also a “hidden” Delegation limitation (the output numbers are restricted to your Delegation Limit), however this is the same as the collection, so it does not matter.
pg
Hey Warren, is It possible to use the solution in the “Collect all records in list” section while restricting the number of columns? I tried changing the “SPlist” in your code with a “ShowColumns(SPlist)” but I get only the 2000 records (my delegation limit setting). My list has many columns so I’m trying to limit the number columns to make it faster. Thanks in advance for your time and for this blog post. It’s amazing.
Warren Belz
Hi PG,
ShowColumns is a “hidden” delegation limit and fill “cap” the records accessed by the filter (as you have discovered) – you can try this (I cannot test presently, but it should work
ForAll(wSets As MaxMin,
Collect(
colAllList,
With(
{
wData:
Filter(
SPListName,
SeqNoField > MaxMin.LowID && SeqNoField <= MaxMin.HighID ) }, ShowColumns( wData, "Column1", "Column2", . . . . ) ) ) )
Pg
Hey Warren, it works almost perfectly. All the columns are still getting fetched, but their data is not, only the columns that I specified have data. It’s definitely an improvement. I don’t know if it’s possible not to include the other columns in the same code, I’m doing a DropColumns after everything to get rid of them.
Thanks for your prompt response. Because of it, I also discovered a few other bugs that neeed ironing out.
PG
“…I’m doing a **another ShowColumns** after everything to get rid of them.”