I apologize for being rude and impatient. I deeply appreciate all the help
available on this MS Discussion Group.

"David Biddulph" wrote:

The reason why JP asked the question he did is that in a large proportion of
the questions asked on this group, the question asked is either not what the
OP *intended* to ask, or is such an incomplete question that an appropriate
answer can't be given.

Most OPs are happy to provide the extra information to help the "experts" to
whom you refer to provide an answer (and please remember that the experts
are doing so in their own time, without payment, and out of a desire to help
the rest of the Excel community).

The *easiest* thing for JP to have done would have been merely to have
ignored your original message, or to have said "No" to your question. He
was, however, trying to be helpful. He, and others, will have seen the
attitude you demonstrated to those trying to help you.
--
David Biddulph

"Rebecca" wrote in message
...
Thanks, JP, but ...

First, I am well aware of the "helper column" procedure you mentioned, but
this is not what I am after.

Regarding your questions, "Why are you inserting rows," etc., well, now I
will have to spend time explaining. With all due respect, I wish the
"experts" would just provide answers and not ask why, but here goes.

I am using Excel more or less as a database. Yes, I know this is an
unorthodox, blasphemous, inefficient, whatever, but please spare the
lectures. It works just fine, and better with MS's bulky Access, which I
used
to use, but it didn't come with my Office 2007 package.

Now occasionally I have to insert and/or delete a row or rows, which will
disrupt the sequence of rows top to bottom (don't ask why -- please). So I
am
left with a blank or blanks (or deletions) in the so-called "helper row"
you
mentioned above.

Access has a (Primary) Key, if I remember, and I was wondering if I could
set up a col. that would automatically recalculate the sequence if a row
was
added or subtracted. Then after various sorts and the like were performed,
I
could resort on the "helper key" column to return to the original sequence
(though revised somewhat depending on whether or not new rows have been
added
or subtracted).

As you can see, it would have been better just to provide an answer to my
original question, even if my use of Excel is utterly unorthodox. All I
wanted to know is how to set up a solid column that will renumber itself
as
rows are added and/or subtracted. But thanks for your imput, anyway.


"JP" wrote:

Just curious, why do you need to sort the spreadsheet before making
updates? Can't you make the updates without sorting it first? Then you
wouldn't have the problem of needing to sort it back to the way it
was.

If you want to preserve a list of data so you can sort it and then re-
sort it back to its original sort order, just insert a helper column
(I use column A) and fill down the number series (1,2,3 ....). Sort by
whatver column you want, then when you are done, just sort it by that
column again.

Why are you inserting rows, I thought you wanted to preserve the
original sort order. Can't you just append the new data to the bottom?
Otherwise, just insert your rows, then recreate the number series.

HTH,
JP

On Sep 21, 12:34 am, Rebecca
wrote:
Greetings. I am using MS VISTA and Excel 2007 (I am a relative
newcomer).

I was wondering if I can create a (Primary) Key column (or whatever
it's
called), so that I can resort the spreadsheet back to the original
order /
sequence (that is, after I make some revisions / updates in certain
cells).

The problem arises when I have to insert new rows, which create gaps in
the
column I am currently using (it is simply a column with a numbered
sequence
1-about 700000!). How can this be done? And please explain in very
simple
English. Thank you.