Check out this old post:

http://groups.google.com/group/micro...6f3958191dde02


--

Regards,

RD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please keep all correspondence within the Group, so all may benefit !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Dallman Ross" <dman@localhost. wrote in message
...
Ragdyer,

Your suggestion of course works just fine. Thank you.

I would like to ask why the formula you offered is seen as
resource-intensive, and what I might do about it if I still
want running totals for more than circa 5,000 rows.


I was actually trying to figure out if one can do the whole thing
without using any extra column for the running total. Just have a
named formula, for example. But it seems pretty hard to conceive
of. It might be impossible. And if it's not, it might be very
resource intensive. Still, I was racking my brain trying to see if
it could be done and decide if I want to. :-)

An analogy would be if we suppose there are numbers entered into
A1:A100 already, and I create a named formula like this:

=($A$1:$A$100)^0

I name it, then use the name in a chart. Now I have a line 100
ticks long with a height of 1. It won't matter what the numbers
are in A, as long as they are numbers.

If I make the formula this:

=($A$1:$A$100)^0*AVERAGE($A$1:$A$100)

I can plot an average line without having to bother having
a separate column to contain the average for my chart.

Well, that's where I was coming from. I wanted to try to
take that further and create other sorts of plottable lines
and curves without using up a column to set them up for the chart.

Best,
=dman=
--------------------
In , Ragdyer
spake thusly:

Say you start your values in A2, and will continue to enter additional
data
down Column A.

In B2 enter:

=SUM(A$2:A2)

And copy down as needed.

This is a very resource intensive formula.
Shouldn't be used for ranges in excess of say 5,000 rows.