The plugin Excel Fuzzy Lookup is returning a Similarity value of 1.0 for the case below, they are almost identical but not 100% identical, so I was expecting a value of slightly less than zero.
Example: "Facility Maintenance" vs "Facility Maintenance*"
Notice the asterisk at the end of the second group.
Excel screenshot - Fuzzy lookup results
I set the property IgnoreSymbols equal to false, and I also added a CustomTokenWeightsRowsetName for the "*" with a high value but I just keep getting 1.0.
Any tips? Am I not configuring the right settings for this case? There's really not much documentation about it.
Related
I wondering if anyone will be able to help me sort the formula below out:
=IFERROR((VLOOKUP($D96,August!$C:$P,F$78,FALSE))-(VLOOKUP($D96,July!$C:$O,(F$78+1),FALSE)),IF(U96="NEW PART",(VLOOKUP($D96,July!$C:$O,(F$78+1),FALSE)),IF(V96="NEW PART",(VLOOKUP($D96,August!$C:$O,(F$78),FALSE)),"")))
Originally the formula was
=IFERROR((VLOOKUP($D95,August!$C:$P,F$78,FALSE))-(VLOOKUP($D95,July!$C:$O,(F$78+1),FALSE)),"BLANK")
However rather than returning "BLANK" if either sheet does not include that part number I would like the formula to return the figure on the one sheet they appear on. Columns U and V highlight weather the product number is on each sheet. These figures would be + figures if they appear in august and minus figures if they appear in July.
Link/screenshot refer:
In short - replace final 'FALSE' with an additional iferror(Aug,-July)
(see revision at end, following comments / feedback re sound applications/customizing soln as required)..
Formula - per OP request
=IFERROR(VLOOKUP(H4,B4:C14,2,FALSE)-VLOOKUP(H4,E4:F14,2,FALSE),IFERROR(VLOOKUP(H4,B4:C14,2,FALSE),-VLOOKUP(H4,E4:F14,2,FALSE)))
Improvised version
(pre-requisite: Office 365 compatible version of Excel)
=LET(A,INDEX(C4:C14,MATCH(H4#,B4:B14,0)),B,INDEX(F4:F14,MATCH(H4#,E4:E14,0)),IFERROR(A-B,IFERROR(A,-B)))
Motive
Arguments in favour of this version include:
OP version: 127 chars (vs 104) i.e. ~20-25% length reduction on this basis
Audit/review - arguably easier given let function
Flexibility: unless you plan to take advantage of vlookup 'approximate matching' (using True flag instead of False), Index more robust in that it can handle forward and backward references in relation to the indexed column (i.e. with vlookup, index has to lie to left of the column comprising the cell to be returned)
The usual benefits assoc. with 'spill' ranges (i.e. potential for 'dynamic' range feature and automatic calc. from single cell entry)
REVISION:
The following screenshot should shed some light on references/ranges you may wish to alter for 1st formula in present response to operate as you intend within your workbook (corresponding ranges are colour-coded with clear visual link between each)...
So to apply in your case, you'd need to replace shaded/boxed ranges/references in my proposal with those you're using (as indicated - i.e. replace by H4 with your $D95 etc,..."
JB: replace final 'FALSE' with an additional iferror(Aug,-July)
This concept is clearly delineated within screenshot above.
OP: "I tried and just got N/A"
As link in opening line provides evidence of two alternative solns. working error-free, presume 'n/a' result of incorrect application...
Run across a very strange issue that I am curious about. In Excel, I was doing a VLOOKUP to match contact names with a unique ID found in another database. Formula for example: =VLOOKUP(B2,Sheet2!A:B,2,TRUE), very basic. I used approx. match but, of course, some instances still returned #N/A. However, I did double checks with a quick control-F and found a number of instances returning NA when there was in fact a (exact) match. I was troubleshooting and trying a number of things but nothing was working. Many checks confirmed the cells were equal, there was nothing tricky like hidden characters, very peculiar. Anyway, on a whim I changed from approximate match to exact match and lo and behold it worked! The VLOOKUP was returning the correct value.
I'm trying to understand why this is. Obviously if you were requiring an exact match but there was only an approx. match it would return NA. But it doesn't make sense the other way around. An exact match should be returned when allowing even approx. matches! So just trying to understand what is going on behind the scene in VLOOKUP/Excel to make this phenomenon occur.
Appreciate any insight!
When working with approximate VLOOKUP, the key-column (always the 1st column of matrix-range) in the lookup-matrix should always be sorted in ascending order. The reasons for this is the following:
Imagine a key column with the values [2,3,10,4] in the given order. When the key '4' should be looked-up approximately, the function will start comparing the available keys in the column, beginning with '2'. After '3' was passed, '10' follows, which is already greater than the searched '4'. Consequently, the function stops searching and returns the target value of the previous key-row ('3') as an "approximation".
Now, given another example [10,2,3,4]. Here, approx. VLOOKUP will stop searching right after the first key comparison as '10' is greater than the searched '4'. Since no previous key-row is available, the returned value will be #N/A. However, an exact VLOOKUP would have found the matching key as it does not stop searching.
Besides key order, it is recommended to have all the key-values in the same format.
Hope this helps.
I have column I as a calulation column and this is what I currently wrote.
and this gives me nothing.
=IF(B2<>""&D2<>"",B2*D2,IF(B2<>""&D2=""&C2<>"",B2*C2,IF(A2<>""&C2<>""&AND(B2&D2=""),A2*C2,IF(A2<>""&C2=""&D2<>""&B2="",A2*D2,A2*C2))))
The logic is if B2 and D2 are not null multiply b2*d2
if B2 is not null and D2 null then b2*c2
If B2 is null and D2 is not null then a2*d2
else a2*c2
Is any ways to make this code work?
Thank you
Alternative ways or rewriting your formula:
=IF(AND(B2<>"",D2<>""),B2*D2,IF(D2="",IF(B2<>"",B2*C2,A2*C2),IF(D2<>"",A2*D2,A2*C2)))
=IF(AND(B2<>"",D2<>""),B2*D2,IF(AND(B2="",D2=""),A2*C2,IF(D2="",B2*C2,A2*D2)))
They will make negligible difference in performance and what not. BruceWayne's answer is probably more readable in terms of following your logic and therefore easier to maintain or understand in the future. The above answers should provide the same results but are a few characters shorter in length.
And as a wacky alternative for thinking potentially outside the box:
=CHOOSE(SUM((B2<>"")*2+(D2<>""))+1,A2*C2,A2*D2,B2*C2,B2*D2)
Expanding (not just my waist size)
I had time on my hands so I was fooling around with the concept of TRUE and FALSE being equal to 1 and 0 when sent through a math operation. When I started looking at the options this reminded me of how a binary number works. Not that I have bgiven it too much thought, but I think it works because the options for each cell are binary or TRUE/FALSE. Since every possible combination was covered with a unique out come, I just had to come up with a formula that would produce unique results. In this case I just took the converting a a binary number approach. The key is TRUE = 1 after a math operation and FALSE = 0. Now going the other direction is not quite the same but as Jeeped once put it, 0 is FALSE and everything else is TRUE. so 3, -3, and 3.14 are all treated as TRUE if using the numerical values as the outcome of a logic check.
=IF(3.14,"THIS NUMBER IS TRUE","ONLY 0 IS FALSE")
So less side tracking and back on point (not sure how much I need to expand to!).
Looking at the table above, you will note in the yellow area, all possible combination for BLANK and NOT BLANK are listed. If you then assign a value to the column the same way binary numbers are (note row A) you can then start generating all the possible numbers
I started by generating the list I needed in E2:E5 for numbers that CHOOSE could work with. I assumed 0 would beat up CHOOSE and cause it to fail. I knew that FALSE+FALSE=0 and I also knew that TRUE+TRUE=2 and that both TRUE+FALSE=1 and FALSE+TRUE=1. I needed a way to distinguish the later two and I knew I needed a total of 4 results. That is when binary counting/conversion whatever you want to call it kicked in. I placed the following formula in D2 and copied down
=SUM((A2<>"")*2+(B2<>""))
Note the brackets around the logic check and
that the logic checks are sent through a math
operation before being summed.
technically speacking it is really:
=SUM((A2<>"")*2+(B2<>"")*1)
however the *1 is not needed
once I had that list generate, it was a simple +1 added to it to get into the 1 to 4 range seen in E2:E5.
Now that I had a way of generating the index number the only thing left to do was to match up the required results/formula with the right combination.
=CHOOSE(SUM((A2<>"")*2+(B2<>""))+1,"A","B","C","D")
Well I felt like I was beating a dead horse there for a bit, so if I over explained, my apologies. If there is something still missing ask for more explination.
UPDATE TID BIT
IF there were more columns to check it may be possible to adjust the choose formula by simply adding the next binary value to the column and making sure there is an appropriate number of results in the choose list. There should be 2^(# of columns to check) options
=CHOOSE(SUM((A2<>"")*4+(A2<>"")*2+(B2<>""))+1,"A","B","C","D","E","F","G","H")
Which kind of beats multiple nested IFs for brevity, but I think I finds the nested IFs easier to understand.
You should be using AND():
=IF(AND(B2<>"",D2<>""),B2*D2,IF(AND(B2<>"",D2=""),B2*C2,IF(AND(B2="",D2<>""),A2*D2,A2*C2)))
You seem to be mixing operators from other programming languages:
In Excel:
AND : binary operator : AND(TRUE, FALSE) => FALSE
& : concatenation : "Hello " & "World" => "Hello World"
Using Excel 2010, and the Microsoft "Fuzzy Lookup" add in to compare a column out of 2 worksheets. First worksheet has around 48,000 rows (x 3 columns), second worksheet has around 23,000 rows (x 5 columns). The "Fuzzy Lookup" is comparing one column from each & returning a similarity between the two.
The fuzzy lookup appears to run without a problem, and the results - in most cases - appear to be correct. For example:
W2-NK22/16 in one worksheet shows to have a 0.97 similarity to W2NK2216.
But not in all cases. Some that I expected to have some degree of similarity, instead have 0.000 returned by the Add-In. For example:
761689700000
should have some degree of similarity to:
761689700000EN4239
but the Fuzzy Lookup add in returns 0.000 for it. Both fields are formatted as text. Neither have spaces before or after them, and the first 12 characters are identical.
I have uninstalled & reinstalled the add-in, and have used the default settings. The only other Fuzzy Lookup settings I have changed were in Configure --> Global -- UseApproximateIndexing. I have set it to both False and True which have had no impact.
I have hundreds of examples like the one above that show 0.000 similarity, but upon inspection appear to be very similar. Rows before & after them show various degrees of similarity.
Any thoughts or ideas as to why this doesn't appear to function correctly, or a better way to do this approximate match would be appreciated.
Trying to add content even though this case is 2 years old. Hopefully someone else can use it.
For Transformations, Tokenization, etc - look in the same folder where Fuzzy Lookup is installed. There is an example file there called Portfolio.xlsx and a corresponding Readme.docx file. Those are very helpful. Frankly the documentation on the Fuzzy Lookup add-in is terrible (but it is free). The Readme file talks about an entitlement called "EditTransformationProvider" that might help this kind of problem.
I've implemented Fuzzy on a couple processes at my work and we have saved hundreds of man-hours when working in Excel. It's no joke.
How do I apply following requirement in Saved Search criteria?
Filter all inventory items
Where min( {memberitem.quantityavailable} / {memberquantity} ) <> custitem_quantity
Note: custitem_quantity is a custom numeric field.
Note2: NetSuite is throwing error when I use min function in filters.
There is more than one issue here.
You have to be careful with custom numerics in Netsuite.
When your inner condition evaluates, it does not have the same type because it is fractional. At some point it has to be rounded and / or truncated internally. The other side of the expression would need to call a floor or ceiling function to remove everthing past the decimal.
Also, the min function evaluates after the <> conditional, which will be dependent upon whether your custom numeric is type compatible to begin with.
In the expression you provided us, it would have to be an exact match (and an exact type), and that is before you consider whether MIN gets to be evaluated.
Look at how the datatypes are cast and what columns you are processing because memberitem.quantityavailable may need a secondary index depending upon your dependencies and where the formula is being called. If this formula is being used over multiple products, it may not be logically consistent.
When I have similar items in inventory that I want to generate stats for I try to process it separately, even if I have to make a second pass.
What are you trying to isolate exactly - - I cannot think of a quantity-related situation where there would be a need to use division in this way - - please refer to the formula Mike Robbins listed above for a properly structured evaluation and see if it achieves the desired result.
If you post the rest of your code, I will help you resolve this.
The entire expression is not valid and will not evaluate due to the conditional shown, the MIN, nor the division. Index the count on the memberquantity if you are looking to sum over values. Otherwise, CountIF will work for quantities. MIN will only finds the lowest value in a given column, so SumIF appears to be what you are after. You can create a second expression which bounds the values you are searching for as a preliminary step.
I am new here, so please elaborate on what you are trying to accomplish so I can earn the bounty.
You may want to take into account null values as well to avoid errors or inconsistent data.
If you're using formula numeric, try this:
Formula(Numeric):
case when min((NVL({memberitem.quantityavailable},0) / NVL({memberquantity},0)) - (NVL{custitem_quantity},0)) then 1 else 0 end
'IS EQUAL TO' 1
I believe you can use the Formula Text or Formula Numeric Search Filter for that.