ReportViewer Exports Matrix Report Merged Cells to Excel

Question

3.50/5 (2 votes)

See more:

.NET3.5

I am developing a report (RDLC) using Microsoft ReportViewer in local mode. It is a matrix report (some may call this a crosstab report). For example, the matrix table may have 3 columns for populations of cities:

-----------------------------------
State city Population
-----------------------------------
TX Houston 3000000
TX Dallas 1500000
CA Los Angeles 3500000
CA San Francisco 2500000
-----------------------------------

However, ReportViewer groups multiple values of states into one merged cell like so:

-----------------------------------
State city Population
-----------------------------------
TX Houston 3000000
Dallas 1500000
CA Los Angeles 3500000
San Francisco 2500000
-----------------------------------

When exported to Excel, the cells in Excel are also merged. Is there a way not to have the first column merged? The format of the table on the top is what I want, not the bottom one.

I am using VS 2010 SP1, VB, .NET Framework 3.5 SP1.
Hope someone can have a solution, or can tell me that this is a current limitation.

Thanks in advance.

Posted 8-Jun-11 9:38am

Member 7939131

Updated 12-Jun-11 8:46am

v6

Add a Solution

2 solutions

Solution 2

A little late to the punch, but this question appeared high on the Google results.

If you right-click on a group in the Grouping Window, and choose Group Properties, it opens a Group Properties window. In that window you can add additional fields to group by. You can then add static columns for those fields into the Tablix.

In the RDLC file, this looks like:

HTML

<TablixRowHierarchy>
  <TablixMembers>
    <TablixMember>
      <Group Name="Level_Block_Name">
        <GroupExpressions>
          <GroupExpression>=Fields!Level.Value</GroupExpression>
          <GroupExpression>=Fields!Block.Value</GroupExpression>
          <GroupExpression>=Fields!Name.Value</GroupExpression>
        </GroupExpressions>
      </Group>
      <SortExpressions>
        <SortExpression>
          <Value>=Fields!Level.Value</Value>
        </SortExpression>
        <SortExpression>
          <Value>=Fields!Block.Value</Value>
        </SortExpression>
        <SortExpression>
          <Value>=Fields!Name.Value</Value>
        </SortExpression>
      </SortExpressions>
      ...

Posted 27-Feb-12 0:08am

Mizard X

Updated 27-Feb-12 0:13am

v2

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

milenalukic · Accepted Answer · 2011-06-14T10:21:00

Solution 1

I had a similar problem. This might not be the best solution but it solves the issue.

Include an extra column in your data (Call it what you like) you can even leave it blank.

When you create the matrix group on State as you are doing and also include the extra column so that it shows between state and city.

In design view populate the blank column with State value.

Make the State column invisible.

That gives you the format in your first table.

I hope this helps.

Posted 14-Jun-11 10:21am

milenalukic

Comments

Member 7939131 14-Jun-11 20:30pm

Yes it is a good work around. I think this is a 98% solution. 1% is that the invisible column, while not exported to PDF, but is exported to Excel. The other 1% is that if the user selects a big data range, there is this extra column of data the report needs to handle, so the performance may get a little hit.

But this is good enough for me, and I hope for my users. I've already released the update.

Lots of thanks for your help.

Muhammad Ali Shahzeb 9-Apr-14 4:40am

Thanks for the tip. It worked :)