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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #406907

Re: spreadsheet ergonomics

Show all headers | View raw

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.

> 10 rows per table):

Again: you have one table.

> 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.

> 0.644 seconds to generate
> 3 seconds to open
> 
> 1,404,000 tables:

Again: 1 table.

> 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.

> 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?



-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

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