Handling role-playing dates in Power BI with one renamed and two calculated date tables

Design and implement a data model
Answer Correct answer: A — Yes, three separate date tables with active relationships to sales is a supported role-playing-date design.

Note: This question is part of a series of questions that present the same scenario. Each question in the series contains a unique solution that might meet the stated goals. Some question sets might have more than one correct solution, while others might not have a correct solution. After you answer a question in this section, you will NOT be able to return to it. As a result, these questions will not appear in the review screen. You have a Power BI report that imports a date table and a sales table from an Azure SQL database data source. The sales table has the following date foreign keys: • Due Date • Order Date • Delivery Date You need to support the analysis of sales over time based on all the date foreign keys. Solution: From the Fields pane, you rename the date table as Due Date. You use a DAX expression to create Order Date and Delivery Date as calculated tables. You create active relationships between the sales table and each date table. Does this meet the goal?

  1. Yes Correct Answer
  2. No

Community Votes

A
78%
B
22%

78% of anonymous learners picked answer A. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.

Community Insight

Three separate date tables each joined actively to the sales table is a fully supported pattern for analyzing one fact table by multiple date roles — the one-active-relationship-per-table-pair limit never applies because the pairs are different.

A sales table carries three date foreign keys (Due Date, Order Date, Delivery Date), and the proposed design renames one date table as Due Date and creates the other two as DAX calculated tables, each with an active relationship to sales.

Assuming one fact table can only ever have one active relationship total — the limit is one active relationship per pair of tables, so three distinct date tables can each own an active relationship to Sales.

Community Discussion (8 comments)

7eb1fdb 👍 5
Deja vu
jaume 👍 1 Selected: A
Same question as Q77 but also same answer :-)
amiruladliroslibin 👍 2 Selected: B
In Power BI, only one active relationship can exist between two tables at a time. By renaming the date table as "Due Date" and creating calculated tables for "Order Date" and "Delivery Date", you are essentially creating multiple date tables and attempting to establish multiple active relationships with the sales table.
Jayaruwan 👍 2 Selected: A
Yes is the correct answer
Monsta 👍 2 Selected: A
Yes is the correct answer
nelrosell 👍 2
Yes - correct
rcaliandro 👍 2 Selected: A
Yes, is the correct answer
Endeetheanalyst 👍 3
No is the correct answer

Comments & Corrections

No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.

Log in to comment, report an error, or add a note about this question.

Submitted for moderation before publishing. Keep it helpful and respectful.

Expert Analysis

Why the Answer Is Correct

Renaming the imported date table to Due Date and creating Order Date and Delivery Date as calculated date tables produces three independent date dimensions. The sales table then has an active relationship to each of the three date tables, which is legal because each relationship is on a different table pair. Slicing by any of the three roles then works directly in the report, so the design supports sales analysis over all three date foreign keys.

Why the Other Options Are Wrong

The No camp argues Power BI allows only one active relationship between two tables — true as stated, but irrelevant here, since the sales-to-Due Date, sales-to-Order Date, and sales-to-Delivery Date relationships are three separate pairs. The alternative designs (one date table with inactive relationships and USERELATIONSHIP, or marking all but one inactive) are also valid patterns, but the question asks only whether this specific solution meets the goal, and it does.

Community Comment Notes

Multiple commenters answer Yes, and one notes this matches the same answer given for an earlier question in the series. The lone dissenting comment leans on the one-active-relationship rule without noticing it applies per table pair, which is exactly the distinction the correct design exploits.

Official Reference

Related Analysis

Practice All PL-300 Questions

Access 116 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.

View Full PL-300 Practice Test →

← Back to PL-300 Study Guide