It's getting clearer.

The function you are proposing will only bring back three individual
paychecks and I don't think that is what you want. It sounds like you want
to sum 26 consecutive paychecks and see which 26 paychecks total the largest
amount. They don't need to be in the same year, they just need to be
consecutive.

Or, are these paychecks even in chronological order or does the order even
matter. If that the case, this gets really easy.

Let me know.

--
Regards,

PJ
Please rate this post using the vote buttons if it was helpful.



"StillLearning" wrote:

HI

YES, thank you that explains my question perfectly!! "does not fall with +/-
26 rows of the largest number". And need to then do it two more times for
the other numbers.

Ok so why I need this (hard to explain). This is a payroll calculation. I
have column "A" has every paycheck for every pay period (26 a year, we paid
bi-weekly) a person received for 5 years. Column "B" (the one I'm trying to
find the three highest) is the total of 26 paychecks. What I am hoping to do
is find a persons three highest years of pay. We identify this as 3
different 12 month periods. They don't have to be calendar years. They
don't have to be consecutive.

So my column B totals 26 paychecks. And then moves forward and does it
again. And again. The problem is that if I don't count +/-26 rows, I run
the risk of using some of the paychecks in column "A" in more than one year.
We wouldn't have an accurate accounting of the person's three highest.

Thank you for your help and I look forward to your suggestions!

"PJFry" wrote:

=LARGE(array,1) will give you the largest number, =LARGE(array,2) the second,
etc.

I am a wee bit curious about the the second requirement. What is the logic
for the need for a =26 row seperation between the values?

It sounds like you want to bring back the largest value in an array. Then
you want to bring back the second largest value in the same array so long as
it does not fall with +/- 26 rows of the largest number. Does that sound
right?
--
Regards,

PJ
Please rate this post using the vote buttons if it was helpful.



"StillLearning" wrote:

Thanks for writing. One column and 130 rows with numbers in them. So yes
130 numbers in a single column.

"PJFry" wrote:

Do you have 130 numbers in a single column or do you have 130 columns each
containing a single number?
--
Regards,

PJ
Please rate this post using the vote buttons if it was helpful.



"StillLearning" wrote:

I have a column with over 130 numbers in it. I want to find the 3 highest
numbers. However these numbers must be seperated by at least 26 cells (they
can't be next to each other). Is there a way to do this using LARGE or some
other function?