[Analytic Block] Retention Analysis


Looker has created this block to make analyzing data easier and more efficient. This Data Block is made available on an “as is” basis, meaning there will not be updates moving forward.


About This Block


One of the most common requests we receive at Looker is for a better way to perform cohort analysis. Charts like these have become commonplace in modern data applications:





Retention Analysis Image 1



From gaming apps to retail stores, countless businesses want to understand how well they are retaining various cohorts of customers and how to effectively leverage that understanding. This means that countless businesses have also felt the pain of having to write some very complex queries.



Retention analysis works with several different data structures. The pattern below utilizes data that contains a users table and a transactions table.



Try It Yourself


It’s difficult to analyze cohort-based retention when we use traditional SQL, because we want to simultaneously see the number of users in a cohort (time-invariant) and the number of users in that cohort with activity in a given month (time-variant). So, we want to group by two different months: signup_month and activity_month. But, when we group by activity_month, we want to make sure we don’t exclude users without any activity that month. Nasty stuff.



Traditionally, the solution would be to calculate each number separately with multiple queries and then stitch the results together in Excel. But that approach isn’t flexible: It doesn’t allow us to slice and dice by all the other user attributes in the database (among other applications), and we certainly don’t get to drill in to the individual users. Seems like a waste of all that data!



Lookering for a Better Way



The trick is using derived tables to define one table with a large join. Remember, a derived table is not designed to provide an answer to an actual business question; instead, it transforms the underlying data so that, when users start exploring, they see a more meaningful result.



For example, we want our users to be able to explore in Looker to answer a question like this one: “For users acquired from paid search versus organic traffic, what percentage of users are still active after three months, and have those percentages been getting better or worse over time?”



To achieve this, we need the underlying data to contain a row for each user_month combination that demonstrates each user’s behavior in each month — including months with no user activity at alland has the ability to join in all relevant user attributes. To visualize this, imagine a gaming company has users in an app.



Table 1: Users

user_id signup_date acqsource
1 1/20/15 paid_search
2 2/15/2015 paid_search
3 3/2/2015 organic


Table 2: App Logins


event_id user_id event_date
1 1 1/21/15
2 1 3/4/15
3 1 4/1/15
4 2 5/1/15
5 2 2/15/15
6 2 2/16/15
7 2 2/17/15
8 3 3/5/15
9 3 4/1/15
10 3 5/1/15


Now, we can use the following LookML pseudo-code to transform the data into a derived table, which gives us one row for each user-month combination and tells us about each user’s activity in that month, including months with no activity.



Starting in Looker 7.4, the filters parameter syntax has changed. See the filters parameter documentation page to view the new syntax.



view: monthly_activity {

derived_table: {

sql_trigger_value: select current_date ;;

sortkeys: ["signup_month"]

distribution: "user_id"


users.id as user_id

, date_trunc ('month', users.created_at) as signup_month

, month_list.purchase_month as purchase_month

, COALESCE(data.monthly_purchases, 0) as monthly_purchases

, COALESCE(data.total_purchase_amount, 0) as monthly_spend

, row_number() over() AS key






DISTINCT(date_trunc('month', order_items.created_at)) as purchase_month

FROM order_items

) as month_list

ON month_list.purchase_month >= date_trunc ('month', users.created_at) -- your dialect will vary





, date_trunc('month', o.created_at) as purchase_month

, COUNT(distinct o.id) AS monthly_purchases

, sum(o.sale_price) AS total_purchase_amount

FROM order_items o


) as data

ON data.purchase_month = month_list.purchase_month

AND data.user_id = users.id



dimension: user_id {

type: number

sql: ${TABLE}.user_id ;;


dimension_group: signup {

type: time

timeframes: [month]

sql: ${TABLE}.signup_month ;;


dimension_group: purchase {

type: time

timeframes: [month]

sql: ${TABLE}.purchase_month ;;


dimension: months_since_signup {

type: number

sql: datediff('month', ${TABLE}.signup_month, ${TABLE}.purchase_month) ;;


dimension: monthly_purchases {

type: number

sql: ${TABLE}.monthly_purchases ;;


dimension: monthly_spend {

type: number

sql: ${TABLE}.monthly_spend ;;


measure: total_users {

type: count_distinct

sql: ${user_id} ;;

drill_fields: [users.id, users.age, users.name, user_order_facts.lifetime_orders]


measure: total_active_users {

type: count_distinct

sql: ${user_id} ;;

drill_fields: [users.id, users.age, users.name, user_order_facts.lifetime_orders]

filters: {

field: monthly_purchases

value: ">0"



measure: percent_of_cohort_active {

type: number

value_format_name: percent_1

sql: 1.0 * ${total_active_users} / nullif(${total_users},0) ;;

drill_fields: [user_id, monthly_purchases, total_amount_spent]


measure: total_amount_spent {

type: sum

value_format_name: usd

sql: ${monthly_spend} ;;

drill_fields: [detail*]


measure: spend_per_user {

type: number

value_format_name: usd

sql: ${total_amount_spent} / nullif(${total_users},0) ;;

drill_fields: [user_id, monthly_purchases, total_amount_spent]


measure: spend_per_active_user {

type: number

value_format_name: usd

sql: ${total_amount_spent} / nullif(${total_active_users},0) ;;

drill_fields: [user_id, total_amount_spent]


dimension: key {

type: number

primary_key: yes

hidden: yes

sql: ${TABLE}.key ;;


set: detail {

fields: [user_id, signup_month, monthly_purchases, monthly_spend]




The resulting table would show this:



user_id first_active_month activity_month monthly_visits
1 1/15 1/15 1
1 1/15 2/15 0
1 1/15 3/15 1
1 1/15 4/15 1
1 1/15 5/15 1
2 2/15 2/15 3
2 2/15 3/15 0
2 2/15 4/15 0
2 2/15 5/15 0
3 3/15 3/15 1
3 3/15 3/15 1
3 3/15 3/15 1


Our last step is to define this derived table view as an Explore and join our users table:


explore: user_monthly_activity {

join: users

sql_on: ${user_monthly_activity.user_id} = ${users.id}

relationship: many_to_one



Now, when our users select activity_month, signup_month, and percent_of_cohort_still_active, they will see the percentage of user retention by monthly activity cohort, all from a single query. Then, our users can filter or pivot by user-acquisition source, drill in to specific users, and discover trends that may impact how their marketing team chooses to spend user-acquisition dollars.





Retention Analysis Image 2


13 replies

Userlevel 4

There are lots of extension to this model as well. One view that lots of folks like with cohorts is something like cumulative spend:

By simply swapping our measure from percent_active to average_spend, we have cohorted spend data. This quick PDT using inequality joins allows us to do cumulative spend:

- view: cohort_cumulative


sql: |


utm1.user_id as user_id

, utm1.signup_month

, utm1.activity_month as activity_month

, SUM(utm2.monthly_orders) AS cumulative_monthly_orders

, SUM(utm2.monthly_items) as cumulative_monthly_items

, SUM(utm2.monthly_spend) as cumulative_monthly_spend

FROM ${cohort.SQL_TABLE_NAME} as utm1

LEFT JOIN ${cohort.SQL_TABLE_NAME} as utm2

ON STR_TO_DATE(CONCAT(utm2.activity_month, "-01"), "%Y-%m-%d")

<= STR_TO_DATE(CONCAT(utm1.activity_month, "-01"), "%Y-%m-%d")

AND utm1.user_id = utm2.user_id

GROUP BY 1,2,3

ORDER BY 1,2,3

indexes: [user_id]

sql_trigger_value: SELECT CURRENT_DATE()

Is there something missing from this discussion about how to pivot on "months since signup’? I am guessing you would need another dimension that would calculate the month delta between the signup month and activity month. Or is there a way to compute this on the fly?

@Oliver That’s exactly right - it would look something like this:

  - dimension: months_since_signup

type: number

sql: datediff('month',${users.created_raw},${order_items.created_raw})

By the way - it’s worth noting that a slightly simpler version of this analysis can be done without the complex PDT pattern I described above. The pattern demonstrated here is useful when you have users who may belong to a cohort but never be considered ‘active’, which requires the independent calculations of cohort size and active user counts.

If, however, you only want to include users who were active in the cohort, the following is a bit simpler: Cohort Exploration Normalized by Cohort Size (no modeling required)

Userlevel 3

Is it possible to enrich the display of a retention cohort chart with the size of the cohort?

Hey @ross - there’s not a super easy way to do that at the moment, but stay tuned for some upcoming chart improvements which will offer more flexibility for things like this 🙂

Userlevel 3

Glad to hear it. Period-to-period changes in cohort composition is generally a major driver of changes to performance, so being able to display that information in a cohort display is quite important.

Userlevel 3

One other question! When doing this in pure SQL, it would be prudent (for performance purposes) to perform the “fan join” after compressing on the relevant dimensions, rather than before. For example, if I’m interested in calculating retention for daily cohorts over weekly intervals by platform, the query would be much more performative if I first grouped by registration date, activity week, and platform, followed by ‘fanning’ the results by those dimensions to ensure that there is a record for each relevant combination of characteristics.

Is there a solution of this sort in Looker, or is it necessary to fan the data out at the atomic level?

Yup, you’re right - I’ve actually been meaning to replace the SQL here with something a bit more efficient and clean. Performance isn’t a huge issue here, since the big nasty query can happen overnight, but still a good practice

@savage Thanks for this writeup! I was messing around with this and ran into an error caused by a little typo that I thought I’d mention. In your final ‘Select’ statement, you call a column “monthy_events” and then refer to it later as “monthly_events”. Notice the missing “L” in the first reference. Keep up the awesome work, I &#x; Looker.

Any update on this?

I’d also consider trimming off any time periods with incomplete measures (or at least giving users a toggle filter so they can do so). The “hooks” at the ends of the various trend lines can be misleading.

Hi - I recreated this but am noticing in my version the nulls show up on the graph rather than the lines ending on the last active month. I’ve tried doing a filter on nulls but that didn’t work. What can I do to make it so the lines cut off like in the example?

Userlevel 7
Badge +1

There’s an option in the visualization settings that you can un-tick called “Plot Null Values”. You can see it in the screenshot here: https://docs.looker.com/exploring-data/visualizing-query-results/line-options#plot_menu_options

Turning that off will work!