I have following data
start stop status
+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 09:01:10 | 09:01:40 | active |
| 09:02:30 | 09:04:50 | active |
| 09:10:01 | 09:11:50 | active |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+
I want to fill in the gaps with "passive"
start stop status
+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 09:01:10 | 09:01:40 | active |
| 09:01:40 | 09:02:30 | passive |
| 09:02:30 | 09:04:50 | active |
| 09:04:50 | 09:10:01 | passive |
| 09:10:01 | 09:11:50 | active |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+
How can I do this in M Query language?
I think I may have a better performing solution.
From your source table (assuming it's sorted), add an index column starting from 0
and an index column starting from 1
and then merge the table with itself doing a left outer join on the index columns and expand the start
column.
Remove columns except for stop
, status
, and start.1
and filter out nulls.
Rename columns to start
, status
, and stop
and replace "active"
with "passive"
.
Finally, append this table to your original table.
let
Source = Table.RenameColumns(#"Removed Columns",{{"Column1.2", "start"}, {"Column1.3", "stop"}, {"Column1.4", "status"}}),
Add1Index = Table.AddIndexColumn(Source, "Index", 1, 1),
Add0Index = Table.AddIndexColumn(Add1Index, "Index.1", 0, 1),
SelfMerge = Table.NestedJoin(Add0Index,{"Index"},Add0Index,{"Index.1"},"Added Index1",JoinKind.LeftOuter),
ExpandStart1 = Table.ExpandTableColumn(SelfMerge, "Added Index1", {"start"}, {"start.1"}),
RemoveCols = Table.RemoveColumns(ExpandStart1,{"start", "Index", "Index.1"}),
FilterNulls = Table.SelectRows(RemoveCols, each ([start.1] <> null)),
RenameCols = Table.RenameColumns(FilterNulls,{{"stop", "start"}, {"start.1", "stop"}}),
ActiveToPassive = Table.ReplaceValue(RenameCols,"active","passive",Replacer.ReplaceText,{"status"}),
AppendQuery = Table.Combine({Source, ActiveToPassive}),
#"Sorted Rows" = Table.Sort(AppendQuery,{{"start", Order.Ascending}})
in
#"Sorted Rows"
This should be O(n) complexity with similar logic to @chillin, but I think should be faster than using a custom function since it will be using a built-in merge which is likely to be highly optimized.