The order of the across keys when using match upper limits cannot be set by the position in the specified values list, as this list is being used for the upper values. So the sorting option on that key only offers the chance to sort by field values or measures.
I've replicated it here with 10 rows of dummy data and it's behaved as you'd expect with 07, 08 and then 09 across the columns.
I have used this many times in V10 and previously V9 without a problem. The sort[/U]is set for descending on measures Totals and that works fine. It is the display of limit summaries that has suddenly run amok.
Not surprising that you couldn't reproduce based on my prior experience.
I was only able to duplicate your results (dates out of order) by sorting the date field using the Measure field, much as Olly has indicated. When sorting based on the Key field, the dates line up properly.
Here's my (albeit limited) sample data:
Perhaps your results are affected for some completely illogical reason by the larger data set. :confused:
What happens if you only use, say, 100 random rows of your data set?
OK, changed filter to select a few rows, not exactly random, but interestingly now the years are arrayed as below compared to the 07, 09, 08 sequence as had originally.
BillToCustomerName 1/31/2009 1/31/2007 1/31/2008 Totals
SOME CUSTOMER 859692 737210 701407 2298309
It's insidious! :eek:
Thanx for your help, I did it manually and chalk this up to poltergeists in the software...