I think one of the main differences with your application, though, is
that you have both positive and negative numbers, and that you want to
match positive with negative. Presumably you could have one positive
number which matched with two, three or more negatives (or is it the
other way round?). Obviously after the first scan in the current macro
to get a one-to-one pairing, there are fewer numbers left, and a
similar scan could then try to get a one-to-two matching, then a one-
to-three matching etc. Once a number has been matched, then it
wouldn't need to be considered in later scans, thus speeding up the
process further.

You have the experience of doing this manually - do you have many one-
to-ten or one-to-twenty pairings? Do you have to account for every
number in the list?

Perhaps if you could put up another set of test data which shows how
you have matched the numbers, I might have a go at revising the macro
further (sometime).

Thanks for your good wishes.

Pete

On Oct 23, 8:57 pm, wrote:
Pete,

I believe, after autofiltering the numbers you generated, i realized
the macro finds the largest values first. The color banding gave that
one away, and i really did not notice that before. Very nice touch
with marking negative pairs with a negative numbered value. This
modification could be mighty useful for data analysis later on, thanks
so much for the code!

As for the link, which does in fact work now, i read into it and it
seems that the process is mighty complicated, and rather impractical
given the size of my data. With nearly 2200 entries being my average
data size, a FindSum program like Harlons would take a billion years
to complete on my computer...literally. And even if it could complete
in 2 seconds, it would generate billions of possible results, which i
could never sift through to find my desired answer. Unfortunatley, i
do not think i will be investigating those possibilities any
further.

But i thank you for referring me to those great sources!

Again, you have thought of a positive addition to an already great
macro. Thank you again for all of your effort, and for sticking with
this thread and with me throughout this learning process!!

You have taught me much ;)

I really cant think of any ways in which this macro could get any
better, at least for my application. I think you are officially off
the hook pete. But if you think of anything else, feel free to post
here, ill check back if i see updates!

Thanks pete.

-Pogster