Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
hi,
i have linked 1 worksheet to 2 other worksheets (all 3 in the same file) using VLOOKUP this in total pulls over 3 different cells into 3 different columns for all 65536 rows. a update will take 30 minutes. i assume thsi could be more efficient, however i don't know how to do that. any suggestions? thanks. |
#2
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
65536 seems a little excessive. Can you limit the tables to less than this
value?? -- Gary''s Student - gsnu200805 "jan" wrote: hi, i have linked 1 worksheet to 2 other worksheets (all 3 in the same file) using VLOOKUP this in total pulls over 3 different cells into 3 different columns for all 65536 rows. a update will take 30 minutes. i assume thsi could be more efficient, however i don't know how to do that. any suggestions? thanks. |
#3
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
i might but still require a large number of rows. i use this to track/report
time entries from a large group of people over time. "Gary''s Student" wrote: 65536 seems a little excessive. Can you limit the tables to less than this value?? -- Gary''s Student - gsnu200805 "jan" wrote: hi, i have linked 1 worksheet to 2 other worksheets (all 3 in the same file) using VLOOKUP this in total pulls over 3 different cells into 3 different columns for all 65536 rows. a update will take 30 minutes. i assume thsi could be more efficient, however i don't know how to do that. any suggestions? thanks. |
#4
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Trying to relate that that many cells is a problem for XL. One problem is you
blow through the 65,536 dependancy tree limit making all formulas act volatile. The other is just the sheer number of calculations is overwhelming. VBA or VBS is not going to help you in this case as they will operate slower than vlookup. Your best option would probably be to use a relational database which is designed for exactly this purpose. Here is a link to calculation and general speed and memory performance... http://www.decisionmodels.com/index.htm -- HTH... Jim Thomlinson "jan" wrote: hi, i have linked 1 worksheet to 2 other worksheets (all 3 in the same file) using VLOOKUP this in total pulls over 3 different cells into 3 different columns for all 65536 rows. a update will take 30 minutes. i assume thsi could be more efficient, however i don't know how to do that. any suggestions? thanks. |
#5
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim,
is there a way to identify the last record in a worksheet, in that case i see possibilities to limit it to those. "Jim Thomlinson" wrote: Trying to relate that that many cells is a problem for XL. One problem is you blow through the 65,536 dependancy tree limit making all formulas act volatile. The other is just the sheer number of calculations is overwhelming. VBA or VBS is not going to help you in this case as they will operate slower than vlookup. Your best option would probably be to use a relational database which is designed for exactly this purpose. Here is a link to calculation and general speed and memory performance... http://www.decisionmodels.com/index.htm -- HTH... Jim Thomlinson "jan" wrote: hi, i have linked 1 worksheet to 2 other worksheets (all 3 in the same file) using VLOOKUP this in total pulls over 3 different cells into 3 different columns for all 65536 rows. a update will take 30 minutes. i assume thsi could be more efficient, however i don't know how to do that. any suggestions? thanks. |
#6
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You can use a dynamic named range. Keep in mind that it uses the offest
function which is volatile... http://www.cpearson.com/excel/excelF.htm#DynamicRanges -- HTH... Jim Thomlinson "jan" wrote: Jim, is there a way to identify the last record in a worksheet, in that case i see possibilities to limit it to those. "Jim Thomlinson" wrote: Trying to relate that that many cells is a problem for XL. One problem is you blow through the 65,536 dependancy tree limit making all formulas act volatile. The other is just the sheer number of calculations is overwhelming. VBA or VBS is not going to help you in this case as they will operate slower than vlookup. Your best option would probably be to use a relational database which is designed for exactly this purpose. Here is a link to calculation and general speed and memory performance... http://www.decisionmodels.com/index.htm -- HTH... Jim Thomlinson "jan" wrote: hi, i have linked 1 worksheet to 2 other worksheets (all 3 in the same file) using VLOOKUP this in total pulls over 3 different cells into 3 different columns for all 65536 rows. a update will take 30 minutes. i assume thsi could be more efficient, however i don't know how to do that. any suggestions? thanks. |
#7
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Rather than use 65536, use a method to determine the last used row, such as
LastRow = Cells(Rows.Count, "A").End(xlUp).Row and use that to determine the size of the data to be processed. -- __________________________________ HTH Bob "jan" wrote in message ... hi, i have linked 1 worksheet to 2 other worksheets (all 3 in the same file) using VLOOKUP this in total pulls over 3 different cells into 3 different columns for all 65536 rows. a update will take 30 minutes. i assume thsi could be more efficient, however i don't know how to do that. any suggestions? thanks. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
More Efficient IF | Excel Programming | |||
Can I use standard Functions with MS Query? | Excel Programming | |||
Three new functions that should be part of your standard set | Excel Worksheet Functions | |||
standard functions not renognized | Excel Programming | |||
Want to use standard excel functions in vb | Excel Programming |