Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #406909

Re: spreadsheet ergonomics

Show all headers | View raw

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/17, 5:24 PM, in article ahvz93a.y03@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/4/17, 10:08 PM, in article szvi3.ab@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/4/17, 9:14 PM, in article ac03ga.hubu32@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/4/17, 7:05 PM, in article javz903.abu@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> How long does it take in Numbers to create a sheet with 52000 tables
>>>>>>>> with locked formulas and labels (A-Z with 2000 tables in each column,
>>>>>>>> each table with a label{#} at the top, and a sum the bottom, summing 10
>>>>>>>> rows)?  And how long does it take to navigate to a specific such table?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2.57 seconds here with sc.
> ...
>>> Oh, over 24K rows... not just 2000 rows as you say above.
>> 
>> Where did I say "2000 rows"?
> 
> Sorry... you speak of 2000 tables in a row separated between 52000 tables
> when you have only one table... but, yes, my mistake in thinking when you
> were talking about units in a column, which are cells (which are in rows)
> you were not talking about that but about groupings you have within the
> table.
> 
> Again comes down to you used incorrect terms BUT I also did not interpret
> your poorly written description well.
> 
>>> And, yes, now I
>>> see what you mean by your made-up term "pseudo table". Before I watched the
>>> video on my small screen iPod. Also was taking care of a sick child off and
>>> on much of the night. Anyway, if you had used, well, even the terms sc uses
>>> then that would have made more sense, but I also should have watched the
>>> video more carefully.
>>> 
>>> In any case, yeah, when I push my solution to 24K rows just say it takes a
>>> LOT longer than yours. Massively longer. Not just six or even 10 times
>>> longer... I can show a video but when I was making it I got bored and
>>> started multitasking so I would need to make a new one. :)
>>> 
>>> Ended up taking it 659 seconds (a second shy of 11 minutes). And even then
>>> it did not do the fill-right correctly. I am going to guess I would have to
>>> add back a slight pause after the adding of calculations on the first
>>> column... so it would talk more than 11 minutes for a working script (well,
>>> maybe the pause could be just one second, but whatever... NOT testing tight
>>> now).
>>> 
>>> I think we can safely say even if I got the labels on which reduced the
>>> number of SUM functions I added by 1/10th that Numbers would still be so far
>>> behind sc in terms of speed on something like this that it should not even
>>> be considered. THAT is more what I was expecting... told you I was shocked
>>> to get what I thought was about 1/6th your speed.
>> 
>> Rewritten in C.  Much faster now. :)
>> 
>> 52000 tables,
> 
> No: one table. You have only one tables. In it you have many ranges you have
> as separate from each other.
> 
>> in original format (26 columns, 2000 tables per column, summing
> 
> 26 columns. Yes. But you do not have 2000 tables per column.
>

Yes I do.
 
>> 10 rows per table):
> 
> Again: you have one table.
> 

Nope.

>> 0.159 seconds to generate  (took 2.57 seconds in bash)
>> less than one second to open
> 
> Is that better than my 11 minutes or so... to do less... and that actually
> does not include the few seconds past that it takes to actually show you the
> finished result. Oh, and if I have been doing a lot of this stuff with
> Numbers it slows down some... so let's just call it close to 15 minutes. :)
> 
>> 1,404,000 tables in original format (702 columns, 2000 tables):
>> 1.377 seconds to generate  (took just over 1 minute in bash)
>> ~6 seconds to open
>> 
>> New format, summing 12 labeled monthly rows filled with random dollar amounts:
>> 
>> 52000 tables:
> 
> You mean one I assume.
>

Nope.
 
>> 0.644 seconds to generate
>> 3 seconds to open
>> 
>> 1,404,000 tables:
> 
> Again: 1 table.
> 

Nope.

>> 964 MB sc file
>> 25 seconds to generate
>> 40 seconds to open
>> 2 seconds to jump from table 0 to table 1403999
> 
> Presumably: 2 seconds to jump to A1 to ZZ27986 (or whatever) in your one
> table.
> 

No, the jump is to "table 1403999".

The command in sc is:

g "1403999


>> http://imgur.com/a/5saYA
> 
> What you have listed as "table 1403999" is at cell ZZ27986 of your one
> table.
> 
> But this does lead to a good question: in your tables you have logical units
> of meaning which are not inherent in the table structure itself (other than
> as ranges). This is common. Do such units have a common name? Calling them
> "tables" is clearly incorrect. But what is a good name for such a set of
> ranges?
>

Any set of tabular data can be considered a table.  When you create
a table in Numbers, if you do not use the entire maximum column and
row limits, do you say that it is not a table?  Of course you don't.
But how can it be a table if you're not maxing it out?  That seems to be
what you're saying.  So given that it *is* still a table without using
the all the cells, how does that subset of the maximum cells anchored
at A0 differ from any other subset?
 

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 09:03 -0700
  Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 09:43 -0700
  Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-08 00:24 +0000
    Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 18:15 -0700
      Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-08 01:41 +0000
        Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 18:58 -0700
          Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-08 02:11 +0000
            Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 20:46 -0700
              Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 21:20 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-08 05:57 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 23:12 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-08 06:23 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 23:44 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-04-08 07:33 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-08 00:47 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 10:28 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2017-04-09 14:00 -0400
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 11:09 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:25 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-04-09 22:01 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 15:40 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 15:48 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-09 22:30 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 15:42 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 08:45 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-10 16:46 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 09:58 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-10 19:07 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 12:25 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 12:36 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Mark Garcia <markymark1901z@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-10 19:44 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 13:00 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 12:25 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-10 19:35 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 12:37 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-10 19:47 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 12:57 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 13:04 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-10 20:17 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 13:27 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-10 20:43 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 13:55 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-10 22:36 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-04-10 16:10 -0500
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 14:18 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-04-10 17:01 -0500
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 12:48 -0700

csiph-web