I'm almost certain this question has been asked before but I couldn't find the answer and have - to be perfectly honest - not the slightest idea what to even call the following problem:
In an excel table I want a sort of false counter whith every number appearing n times.
It will be nested inside a bigger Index formula to basically extract every column n times, to make it look like this
By nesting INT into MOD I managed to get alternating counts:
=MOD(INT(ROW())/2;1) results in the alternating values of 0.5 and 0
However this doesn't seem to lead to a solution for my original problem. So anyone with a name for the functionality I'm looking for or a solution for it has my gratitude.
you were close:
=INDEX(Table1[Value],INT((ROW($ZZ1)-1)/2)+1)
Found another (way more complicated) way to do this:
=INDEX(Table1[Value],INT((ROW()-ROW([Formula])+2)/2))
Related
I have this problem I'm trying to solve in EXCEL, hopefully it's a straightforward one somebody can help with.
Essentially I Have 6 columns, which can be of values 'compliant' or 'missing'.
What I'd like to achieve is that in the 7th column, 'compliant' or 'non-compliant' is written, if the following conditions are met:
1 of column N,L,J is missing (i.e. max of 2 'missing')
Or any of P,V,Z is missing (i.e. none can be 'missing')
I hope that makes sense. At the minute I've cobbled together this horrible formula, but I think I'm on the wrong track completely:
=IF(OR(N2="Missing",L2="Missing",J2="Missing"),"Non-compliant",""),IF(OR(P2="Missing",V2="Missing",Z2="Missing"),"Non-compliant","")
I think the logic you have is close but I don’t think an if statement can check if less than two cells are equal to something. My approach would be to sum a few Boolean values by converting true to 1 and false to 0 with the INT function. So:
=if(or(sum(int(N2=“missing”),int(L2=“Missing),int(J2=“missing))>1,sum(int(P2=“missing”),int(V2=“missing”),int(Z2=“missing”))>0),”non-compliant”,””)
Hope this helps!
=IF(AND(COUNTIF(J1:N1,"m")>1,OR(P1="m",V1="m",Z1="m")),"non-compliant","compliant")
Since I've exhausted about every resource I could find in regards to this question, I figured it was finally time to ask this community.
I have a very large (15k+ row) dataset that I'm looking to generate a report on giving the top 25 largest values based on one of the columns, HOWEVER, there is additional criteria that needs to be considered other than just the values in one column. I have done this already with less criteria, but adding more is giving me trouble.
My (working) formula for Top N with some criteria:
{=LARGE(IF('IMPORTED DATA'!$X$4:$X$1048576 = IF('Data Cleanup'!$AX$3 = 1, "Gaming Designed", "Not Gaming Designed"), 'IMPORTED DATA'!$BH$4:$BH$1048576), ROW(A2) - ROW(A$1))}
The issue comes when I have another criteria I need to add that uses wildcard characters to distinguish the 'correct' criteria. Here is what I've come up with so far, but this just results in the COUNTIF portion always resulting in true, so not actually applying the added criteria:
{=LARGE(IF(COUNTIF('IMPORTED DATA'!$P$6:$P$1048576, IF('Data Cleanup'!$AX$3 = 1, "?????", "????")) * ('IMPORTED DATA'!$X$6:$X$1048576 = IF('Data Cleanup'!$AX$3 = 1, "Gaming Designed", "Not Gaming Designed")) * ('IMPORTED DATA'!$E$6:$E$1048576 <> "All Other (Suppressed)"), 'IMPORTED DATA'!$BH$6:$BH$1048576), ROW(A2) - ROW(A$1))}
I tried to work-around IF statements not accepting wildcard characters using the COUNTIF method but to no avail.
I understand that this is a bit of a rough question, but I'll do my best to respond to as many questions as I can to help clarify.
A couple more bits of information that may be helpful:
This is entirely based in Excel 2019, I know that FILTER would be an easy solution, but I don't have access to that in this version of excel.
The reason for using wildcards is because it was the easiest way to distinguish between the two categories to sort: above or below 100Hz. Anything under 100Hz will be 4 characters, while anything above will be 5.
I also need other data from the same row as the results, so any methods must be also applicable to MATCH criteria so that I can look up the rest of the data with the same search parameters.
its very hard to understand without seeing the data.
What i understood is that if you make a helper column in the dataset as per the criteria you want that would solve your problem.
at least thats how i am also using.
You need to create a ranking column in the data sheet.
Ranking Formula = =COUNTIFS($M$3:$M$233,">="&M3,$K$3:$K$233,K3)
with thise formula you can add as many as criteria as you want.
Index Formula = =INDEX($K$3:$K$233,MATCH(1,($K$3:$K$233=$B$1)*($N$3:$N$233=A3),0))
you need to change the columns names you want.
no need row() functions just try always to use simple sequence will work
Good luck
Ended up solving this in a very simple method thanks to Scott Craner's comment.
Since wildcards don't work in if statements, using LEN did the trick. Final formula ended up being:
{=LARGE(IF(LEN('IMPORTED DATA'!$P$6:$P$30000)=IF('Data Cleanup'!$AX$3 =1,5,4) * ('IMPORTED DATA'!$X$6:$X$30000 = IF('Data Cleanup'!$AX$3 = 1, "Gaming Designed", "Not Gaming Designed")) * ('IMPORTED DATA'!$E$6:$E$30000 <> "All Other (Suppressed)"), 'IMPORTED DATA'!$BH$6:$BH$30000), ROW(A2) - ROW(A$1))}
Thank you to everyone for your help!
Problem is straightforward, but solution is escaping. Hopefully some master here can provide insight.
I have a big data grid with prices. Those prices are ordered by location (rows) and business name (cols). I need to match the location/row by looking at two criteria (location name and a second column). Once the matching row is found (there will always be a match), I need to get the minimum/lowest price from two ranges within the grid.
The last point is the real challenge. Unlike a normal INDEX or MINIFS scenario, the columns I need to MIN aren't contiguous... for example, I need to know what the MIN value is between I4:J1331 and Q4:U1331. It's not an intersection, it's a contiguous set of values across two different arrays.
You're probably saying "hey, why don't you just reorder your table to make them contiguous"... not an option. I have a lot of data, and this spreadsheet is used for a bunch of other stuff. So, I have to work with the format I have, and that means figuring out how to do a lookup/min across multiple non-contiguous ranges. My latest attempt:
=MINIFS(AND($I$4:$J$1331,$K$4:$P$1331),$B$4:$B$1331,$A2,$E$4:$E$1331,$B2)
Didn't work, but it should make it more clear what I'm trying to do. There has GOT to be an easy way to just tell excel "use these two ranges instead of one".
Thanks,
Rick
Figured it out. For anyone else who's interested, there doesn't seem to be any easy way to just "AND" arrays together for a search (Hello MS, backlog please). So, what I did instead was to just create multiple INDEX/MATCH arrays inside of a MIN function and take the result. Like this:
MIN((INDEX/MATCH ARRAY 1),(INDEX/MATCH ARRAY 2))
They both have identical criteria, the only difference is the set of arrays being indexed in each function. That basically gives me this:
MIN((match array),(match array))
And Min can then pull the lowest value from either.
Not as elegant as I'd like... lots of redundant code, but at least it works.
-rt
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"
Does anyone know how I can get excel to look at the following fields, all formatted in mm:ss.00 and return the lowest time. I am using this to calculate PB's - personal best times - in a sports club race sheet.
The formula I am using is
=MIN(J5,(U5),(AE5),(AO5),(AY5),(BI5),(BS5),(CC5),(CM5),(CW5),(DG5),(DQ5),(EA5),(EK5),(EU5))
The problem I have at the moment is that it is including 00:00.00 values in the cells and returning a MIN value of 00:00.00.
Any suggestions would be welcomed.
many thanks
Nigel
Use the following:
=SMALL((J5,U5,AE5,AO5,...),COUNTIF((J5,U5,AE5,AO5,...),0)+1)
COUNTIF counts the amounts of 0 (you maybe need to adjust this value based on your formatting, but it should work). SMALL returns the n-smallest number of the given matrix, with n being the counted value + 1.
Therefore if no 0 is in the matrix, you get the 1st-smallest (aka the smallest), with one 0 you get the 2nd-smallest and so on. Maybe you need to add a check if every value is 0, if that could happen, as in that case SMALL would try to retrieve the value on position list_size+1 of the list, which of course isn't present.