Using Offset to get to the next instance of a variable? - excel

I am attempting to find the next instance of a variable in order to generate a list base on another variable:
Mkt ID
10 908
15 915
15 416
25 312
25 215
32 482
Similar to the above. There are two drop downs, one for market and one for ID. I want the user to be able to select a market and in the ID drop down have the data validation filter to that list of IDs respective to the market in the first drop down.Let's say the market dropdown is $G$2. Market is Column A, and ID is column B.
Here's the formula I have so far:
OFFSET(ADDRESS(MATCH($G$2,A:A,0),1),0,1,COUNTIFS(A:A,$G$2),1)
This formula references the market, offsets by 0 rows and 1 column, counts the number of that market instance for height, and 1 row in width. I do not see why this is not working. Excel just gives the typical, are you really trying to type a formula? error code.

ADDRESS returns a string that looks like a cell reference. You need INDIRECT to turn that into a real cell reference that OFFSET can use.
=OFFSET(indirect(ADDRESS(MATCH($G$2, A:A, 0), 1)), 0, 1, COUNTIFS(A:A, $G$2), 1)

Related

Excel - getting a value based on the max value off another row in a Table

I'm looking for a solution for a problem I'm facing in Excel. This is my table simplified:
Every sale has an unique ID, but more people can have contributed to a sale. the column "name" and "share of sales(%)" show how many people have contributed and what their percentage was.
Sale_ID
Name
Share of sales(%)
1
Person A
100
2
Person B
100
3
Person A
30
3
Person C
70
Now I want to add a column to my table that shows the name of the person that has the highest share of sales percentage per Sales_ID. Like this:
Sale_ID
Name
Share of sales(%)
Highest sales
1
Person A
100
Person A
2
Person B
100
Person B
3
Person A
30
Person C
3
Person C
70
Person C
So when multiple people have contributed the new column shows only the one with the highest value.
I hope someone can help me, thanks in advance!
You can try this on cell D2:
=LET(maxSales, MAXIFS(C2:C5,A2:A5,A2:A5),
INDEX(B2:B5, XMATCH(A2:A5&maxSales,A2:A5&C2:C5)))
or just removing the LET since maxSales is used only one time:
=INDEX(B2:B5, XMATCH(A2:A5&MAXIFS(C2:C5,A2:A5,A2:A5),A2:A5&C2:C5))
On cell E2 I provided another solution via MAP/XLOOKUP:
=LET(maxSales, MAXIFS(C2:C5,A2:A5,A2:A5),
MAP(A2:A5, maxSales, LAMBDA(a,b, XLOOKUP(a&b, A2:A5&C2:C5, B2:B5))))
similarly without LET:
=MAP(A2:A5, MAXIFS(C2:C5,A2:A5,A2:A5),
LAMBDA(a,b, XLOOKUP(a&b, A2:A5&C2:C5, B2:B5)))
and here is the output:
Explanation
The trick here is to identify the max share of sales per each group and this can be done via MAXIFS(max_range, criteria_range1, criteria1, [criteria_range2, criteria2], ...). The size and shape of the max_range and criteria_rangeN arguments must be the same.
MAXIFS(C2:C5,A2:A5,A2:A5)
it produces the following output:
maxSales
100
100
70
70
MAXIFS will provide an output of the same size as criteria1, so it returns for each row the corresponding maximum sales for each Sale_ID column value.
It is the array version equivalent to the following formula expanding it down:
MAXIFS($C$2:$C$5,$A$2:$A$5,A2)
INDEX/XMATCH Solution
Having the array with the maximum Shares of sales, we just need to identify the row position via XMATCH to return the corresponding B2:B5 cell via INDEX. We use concatenation (&) to consider more than one criteria to find as part of the XMATCH input arguments.
MAP/XLOOKUP Solution
We use MAP to find for each pair of values (a,b) per row, of the first two MAP input arguments where is the maximum value found for that group and returns the corresponding Name column value. In order to make a lookup based on an additional criteria we use concatenation (&) in XLOOKUP first two input arguments.

Sum of the greatest value in one column, plus the sum of the other values in another column

Consider the following sheet/table:
A B
1 90 71
2 40 25
3 60 16
4 110 13
5 87 82
I want to have a general formula in cell C1 that sums the greatest value in column A (which is 110), plus the sum of the other values in column B (which are 71, 25, 16 and 82). I would appreciate if the formula wasn't an array formula (as in requiring Ctrl + Shift + Enter). I don’t have Office 365, I have Excel 2019.
My attempt
Getting the greatest value in column A is easy, we use MAX(A1:A5).
So the formula I want in cell C1 should be something like:
=MAX(A1:A5) + SUM(array_of_values_to_be_summed)
Obtaining the values of the other rows in column B (what I called array_of_values_to_be_summed in the previous formula) is the hard part. I've read about using INDEX, MATCH, their combination, and obtaining arrays by using parenthesis and equal signs, and I've tried that, without success so far.
For example, I noticed that NOT((A1:A5 = MAX(A1:A5))) yields an array/list containing ones (or TRUEs) for the relative position of the rows to be summed, and containing a zero (or FALSE) for the relative position of the row to be omitted. Maybe this is useful, I couldn't find how.
Any ideas? Thanks.
Edit 1 (solution)
I managed to obtain what I wanted. I simply multiplied the array obtained with the NOT formula, by the range B1:B5. The final formula is:
=MAX(A1:A5) + SUM(NOT((A1:A5 = MAX(A1:A5))) * B1:B5)
Edit 2 (duplicate values)
I forgot to explain what the formula should do if there are duplicates in column A. In that case, the first term of my final formula (the term that has the MAX function) would be the one whose corresponding value in column B is smallest, and the value in column B of the other duplicates would be used in the second term (the one containing the SUM function).
For example, consider the following sheet/table:
A B
1 90 71
2 110 25
3 60 16
4 110 13
5 110 82
Based on the above table, the formula should yield 110 + (71 + 25 + 16 + 82) = 304.
Just to give context, the reason I want such a formula is because I’m writing a spreadsheet that automatically calculates the electric current rating of the short-circuit protective device of the feeder of a group of electric motors in a house or building or mall, as required by the article 430.62(A) of the US National Electrical Code. Column A is the current rating of the short-circuit protective device of the branch-circuit of each motors, and column B is the full-load current of each motor.
You can use this formula
=MAX(A1:A5)
+SUM(B1:B5)
-AGGREGATE(15,6,(B1:B5)/(A1:A5=MAX(A1:A5)),1)
Based on #Anupam Chand's hint for max-value-duplicates there could also be min-value-duplicates in column B for corresponding max-value-duplicates in column A. :) This formula would account for that
=SUM(B1:B5)
+(MAX(A1:A5)-AGGREGATE(15,6,(B1:B5)/(A1:A5=MAX(A1:A5)),1))
*SUMPRODUCT((A1:A5=MAX(A1:A5))*(B1:B5=AGGREGATE(15,6,(B1:B5)/(A1:A5=MAX(A1:A5)),1)))
Or with #Anupam Chand's shorter and better readable and overall better style :)
=SUM(B1:B5)
+(MAX(A1:A5)-MINIFS(B1:B5,A1:A5,MAX(A1:A5)))
*COUNTIFS(A1:A5,MAX(A1:A5),B1:B5,MINIFS(B1:B5,A1:A5,MAX(A1:A5)))
The explanation works for bot solutions:
The SUM-part just sums the whole list.
The second line gets the max-value for column A and the corresponding min-value of column B for the max-values in column A and adds or subtracts it respectively.
The third line counts, how many times the corresponding min-value for the max-value occurs and multiplies it with the second line.
Can you try this ?
=MAX(A1:A5)+SUM(B1:B5)-MINIFS(B1:B5,A1:A5,MAX(A1:A5))
What we're doing is adding the max of A to all rows of B and then subtracting the min value of B where A is the max.
If you have Excel 365 you can use the following LET-Formula
=LET(A,A1:A5,
B,B1:B5,
MaxA,MAX(A),
MinBExclude, MINIFS(B,A,MaxA),
sumB1,SUMPRODUCT(B*(A=MaxA)*(B<>MinBExclude)),
sumB2,SUMPRODUCT(B*(A<>MaxA)),
MaxA +sumB1+sumB2
A and B are shortcuts for the two ranges
MaxA returns the max value for A (110)
MinBExclude filters the values of column B by the MaxA-value (25, 13, 82) and returns the min-value of the filtered result (13)
sumB1 returns the sum of the other MaxA values from column B (26 + 82)
sumB2 returns the sum of the values from B where value in A <> MaxA (71 + 60)
and finally the result is returned
If you don't have Excel 365 you can add helper columns for MaxA, MinBExclude, sumB1 and sumB2 and the final result

Google Sheets Arithmetic Search

I have two Google sheets tabs:
I.)
--A-- --B--
--1-- type lessThan10Apart
--2-- Car 1
--3-- Plane 0
II.)
--A-- --B-- --C--
--1-- type sourceA sourceB
--2-- Car 1 100
--3-- Plane 10 100
--4-- Car 2 4
My question is how to create the lessThan10Apart formula above. lessThan10Apart should match up the type from sheet I to sheet II and only count the rows that: Are less than 10 units between A and B. But you can also imagine wanting to do any kind of arithmetic between columns B and C and running a COUNT.
My first attempt is something along the lines of:
=COUNTIFS('sheetII'!A:A),$A2, //Match column A
ABS('sheetII'!C:C-'sheetII'!B:B)<10 //Doesn't work!
)
The problem is that you can't seem to be able to do range calculations like this in COUNTIFS.
For the count (per F4 in supplied image),
=SUMPRODUCT(--(ABS(B2:B4-C2:C4)<10))
For the validSum (sum of absolute difference between B & C; per G4 in supplied image),
=SUMPRODUCT(--(ABS(B2:B4-C2:C4)<10), ABS(B2:B4-C2:C4))
Do not use full column references. Minimize your referenced ranges.
Discard the Car text in E4 in the above image.

Return Kth largest Value of range that is determined by an Index & Match lookup

My question is similar to one asked here, but I am having trouble making this work for my situation given my data. I have a data set that uses seeded numbers in row 1 that I use to index match columns. This is because there are drop-down menus that change the match column based on user selection. So the the columns cannot be directly referenced. My data very roughly looks like this:
45 46 50 28
Route
CCS 500 325 40 200
CCS 370 100 380 10
RCS 90 825 50 999
CCS 100 50 32 358
So when my user makes a selection, the number in AE2 changes to reflect the column seed I want (in example, either 45, 46, 50, or 28). I want to be able to return the Kth largest number in that column that is also "CCS". So lets say the user chooses 46 and I want the 2nd largest number that has "CCS" in Route. So the formula searches row 1 for "46", then once it finds the column with it, it looks down that column for the 2nd largest CCS value -- which is 100. I have tried to modify the formula suggested in the other question, (below) but that just seems to stop at the first observation, and I need it to search all of the observations.
LARGE(IF( 'Program Data'!O:O="CCS", INDEX('Program Data'!$A:$GB,0,(MATCH($AE$2,'Program Data'!$1:$1,0)))),1)
Any tips as to what I'm doing wrong?
Your formula works for me....but it's an "array formula" so you need to confirm with CTRL+SHIFT+ENTER so that curly braces like { and } appear around the formula

Find the top n values in a range while keeping the sum of values in another range under x value

I'd like to accomplish the following task. There are three columns of data. Column A represents price, where the sum needs to be kept under $100,000. Column B represents a value. Column C represents a name tied to columns A & B.
Out of >100 rows of data, I need to find the highest 8 values in column B while keeping the sum of the prices in column A under $100,000. And then return the 8 names from column C.
Can this be accomplished?
EDIT:
I attempted the Solver solution w/ no luck. 200 rows looks to be the max w/ Solver, and that is what I'm using now. Here are the steps I've taken:
Create a column called rank RANK(B2,$B$2:$B$200) (used column D -- what is the purpose of this?)
Create a column called flag just put in zeroes (used column E)
Create 3 total cells total_price (=SUM(A2:A200)), total_value (=SUM(B2:B200)) and total_flag (=(E2:E200))
Use solver to minimize total_value (shouldn't this be maximize??)
Add constraints -Total_price<=100000 -Total_flag=8 -Flag cells are binary
Using Simplex LP, it simply changes the flags for the first 8 values. However, the total price for the first 8 values is >$100,000 ($140k). I've tried changing some options in the Solver Parameters as well as using different solving methods to no avail. I'd like to post an image of the parameter settings, but don't have enough "reputation".
EDIT #2:
The first 5 rows looks like this, price goes down to ~$6k at the bottom of the table.
Price Value Name Rank Flag
$22,538 42.81905675 Blow, Joe 1 0
$22,427 37.36240932 Doe, Jane 2 0
$17,158 34.12127693 Hall, Cliff 3 0
$16,625 33.97654031 Povich, John 4 0
$15,631 33.58212402 Cow, Holy 5 0
I'll give you the solver solution as a starting point. It involves the creation of some extra columns and total cells. Note solver is limited in the amount of cells it can handle but will work with 100 anyway.
Create a column called rank RANK(B2,$B$2:$B$100)
Create a column called flag just put in zeroes
Create 3 total cells total_price, total_value and total_flag
Use solver to minimize total_value
Add constraints
-Total_price<=100000
-Total_flag=8
-Flag cells are binary
This will flag the rows you want and you can grab the names however you want.

Resources