1. The returns are different, ref explanation in my response to you earlier
(pasted below), because of different interps of what the OP wanted. My
suggestion simply lines up all the returns from the 6 sheets for each of
the
3000 lines in 6 cols. Yours return results in 1 col, with an implicit
precedence order assumed in the 6 data sheets.
I'm not following you on this????
My interp is that on the summary are lookup values that may or may not be on
any one of 6 sheets. Basically, it's just a lookup across multiple sheets. I
don't understand your use of "precedence" ???????
(and which also contains the same volatile INDIRECT ?)
See my "conclusion" !
The problem with this is convincing people (maybe even ones' self) that the
use of a monster nested IF/VLOOKUP is the best way to go!
Biff
"Max" wrote in message
...
I probably would've gone with what I did in my test 2.
.. the super complex array <g ?
filled down only in 1 col x 3000 rows
(and which also contains the same volatile INDIRECT ?)
2 observations:
1. The returns are different, ref explanation in my response to you
earlier
(pasted below), because of different interps of what the OP wanted. My
suggestion simply lines up all the returns from the 6 sheets for each of
the
3000 lines in 6 cols. Yours return results in 1 col, with an implicit
precedence order assumed in the 6 data sheets. Nothing wrong there, just
different interps.
Btw, think there was a slight interp difference in that I presumed what
the
OP would like to have was to match & extract separate returns from each
of
the 6 sheets for all the 3000 lines. Then he could assess further what
he
wants done.
I didn't assume any "precedence" order in the 6 data sheets.
As you can see, the calc times were pretty much the same ..
2. Wondering whether the calc times would be any different if say, your
array formula were to be modified to return similarly as mine the results
in
6 cols ?
Just some thoughts, Biff <g
--
Rgds
Max
xl 97
---
Singapore, GMT+8
xdemechanik
http://savefile.com/projects/236895
--