Regarding Excel 2007 (though it may pertain to other versions):
I want to apply Excel Data Validation to manually inputted data. In this particular case, the input is of the form NN.nnnnh, where the digit "h" is a "half-digit". That is, it can either be 0 or 5.
The spread-sheet converts land-surveying that is manually entered in the form of Feet, Inches, and 16ths of an inch, into decimal feet
The function of the half-digit is to allow the optional higher-precision to 1/32nd of an inch.
For example:
43.0913 is the raw entry for 43 feet, nine inches, and 13/16ths of an inch.
Now, by adding the half-digit in the fifth decimal place, a precision of 1/32" can be expressed.
For example:
27.08135 is the manual entry for 27 feet, 08 inches, and (13.5/16=) 27/32nds of an inch.
The raw input NN.nnnnh is decomposed and converted into feet as a decimal number, using Excel TRUNC function. This manner of conversion is analogous to the more familiar conversion of angles entered as D˚M'S", into DD.dddddd).
I want to assure that the 5th decimal place, manually entered, is ONLY Zero or 5.
I can separately apply logical tests to determine if the fifth-decimal entry is Zero, or 5.
But, when I combine those separate logical tests using the =IF(OR( structure, I get inconsistent results IFF the manually-entered data has an integer value (i.e., in the NN.nnnnh format, any length of just one foot or greater, manually entered as >= 1.00000). Unless I undertake the surveying of table-top architectural scale models, this has serious limitations !!!
I have attached an example spreadsheet to illustrate the formulae used and the results. If anybody can shed some light on this, it would be appreciated.
(If there is a way to simply Attach a *.xlsx example....please let me know. I had intended to do this, and then discovered that it seems to be impossible!)
Use MROUND to test if the number is the same:
=A1=MROUND(A1,0.00005)
I am trying to load a numeric value and I see that any number greater than 16 digits gets rounded off by PDI.
Whether I am using "Select values" step, or "Modified Javascript" or even "Generate rows" step - the value gets rounded off.
Like for example -
Input value - 346003617942512178
Output value - 346003617942512190
As you can see, the last 2 digits got rounded off.
Is there any setting in Pentaho, which needs to be changed so that this round off doesn't happen or atleast increase the 16 digit limit higher? I would like the data to load as is without any round offs but still being recognized as a Number and not a String.
Any help on this will be appreciated.
You can look this transformation BigNumber, where input value is same but output is different based on data type.
Background: I have been officiating our local jogging events for about ten years now. I am responsible for handling the data of the participants (name, sporting club, bib number) split into their categories (age bracket+gender, distance). The main task is collecting their times, and processing that data (sorting the runners within their category etc). I can handle this with Excel mostly fine.
Problem: What is the ideal time format for entering the race times of the participants? The times are either in the format mm:ss or (for slower runners and/or longer distances) h:mm:ss. Excel doesn't seem to have a built-in format where the hours field is optional. For optimizing my workflow ideally I would like to have a cell format such that the input
47:12 is to be interpreted as 47 minutes and 12 seconds, and the input 1:09:38 is to be interpreted as 1hr 9 minutes and 38 seconds. However, Excel, with the best fitting cell format that I found, will insist that the input 47:12 means 47 hours and 12 minutes. For times exceeding 1 hour I would input 1:03:00 if I meant that the seconds field is to be left with value zero.
How to make Excel realize that when the format can handle up to three numbers as inputs, it would, when given only two numbers, move them towards the end?
Thinking: I "can" key in 47 minutes and 12 seconds as 0:47:12 all right. But because most of the times are under 1 hour, that is partly wasted effort. Also, using such a format the data is displayed on the screen together with that superfluous 0:. What's worse (IIRC) those leading zeros
also appear in the printed versions, which is strange (insulting even) in a shorter distance for junior participants.
My hack: I enter the times as general numbers in the mm,ss format (in these parts a comma serves as a decimal separator). Excel can sort those as numbers just fine. I then duplicate the data of that sorted column to another "printable" version (formatted as text), where the data is just copied, but I correct the times exceeding 60 minutes by hand. This works just fine as long as I'm not in a hurry (our event is not exactly Boston Marathon, say, less than 200 participants), and remember to hide the column that is not supposed to be printed. This is kludgy, and there have been accidents, when other officials have been rushing me to get the results printed.
I managed to create a format where the hour-field is optional. It works with a conditional format. First you format your cells as standard, so you get the times as comma-values. After that you create a conditional format for these cells, which has two rules:
if cellvalue > 0.04166667 format hh:mm:ss
if cellvalue < 0.04166666 format mm:ss
Result:
47:12
01:09:38
01:00:00
So you get what you really want and you can use the original values for sorting and so on.
EDIT:
For the input you need four additional columns. You enter the times as you want, e.g. 47:12 and 1:09:38. In the next three columns you split these values in hour, minute and second, whereby the interpretation limit is 3 hours (03:00), which is 0.125.
So, these are the formulas for the split columns (your input is in B1):
Hours: =IF(B1>0.125,0,HOUR(B1))
Minutes: =IF(B1>0.125,INT(B1)*24+HOUR(B1),MINUTE(B1))
Seconds: =IF(B1>0.125,MINUTE(B1),SECOND(B1))
And finally, you put all values togehter in the forth column:
=TIME(C1,D1,E1)
and use the conditional format above.
If you will be entering your data as
`mmm,ss`
where the comma is the decimal point, then you can convert it to "Excel Time" with the simple formula:
=DOLLARDE(A1,60)/1440
Format the result as you wish.
If you want everything displayed as h:mm:ss then use that as your custom format (Format > Cells > Number > Custom Type:...)
If you want h to be displayed only with values of 60 minutes or greater, then use
[<0.0416666666666667]mm:ss;h:mm:ss
for your cell's custom format.
Beware that seconds must be entered with two digits always. In other words
6,2 will translate to 6 min 20 sec.
6,02 will translate to 6 min 2 sec
I really like IQV's answer above, but as pointed out in the comment section, the leading zero will be required for the data entry side. If for whatever reason this is not acceptable you can use the following ugly formula to convert your time entered in your usual method of mm,ss to hh:mm:ss with the hh: being displayed as required. Unfortunately it converts the whole thing to text which means you can no longer perform math operations on it.
=IF(FIND(".",MOD(D2,60)&".")=2,"0","")&MOD(D2,60)
and since you use , as your decimal separator the formula would become:
IF(FIND(",",MOD(D2,60)&",")=2,"0","")&MOD(D2,60)
If you use ; as your list separator then your formula becomes
IF(FIND(",";MOD(D2;60)&",")=2;"0";"")&MOD(D2;60)
There are probably some cleaner formulas, but that will get you started. Just replace D2 with the location where your time is stored.
Again I still prefer IQV's answer as you can do much more with the time information when its stored as a number and not text.
Option 2
lets say you change your data storage method to hhmm,ss in cell D6. you could rip apart the information and reassemble it in a display friendly version as follows.
=IF(FIND(".",D6)<=3,LEFT(D6,2)&":"&RIGHT(D6,LEN(D6)-FIND(".",D6)),LEFT(D6,FIND(".",D6)-3)&":"&MID(D6,FIND(".",D6)-2,2)&":"&RIGHT(D6,LEN(D6)-FIND(".",D6)))
you will need to substitute your list separator for the , and then substitute a coma for the decimal.
I have a column of data with numbers stored in text.
The numbers look like this: 735999114002665788
If I select any cell in this column and refer to it with the function =value(), the number shows up as 735999114002665000.
As you can see the last three digits are 0. This happens all the time with numbers this long - but NOT with numbers containing less digits.
Am I trying to convert a number that's too large or what's up? Please help! I've tried every form of text-to-number method with identical results :(
Excel's number precision is 15 digits, which is why you're losing the last three digits when converting your 18 character string
https://support.office.com/en-us/article/excel-specifications-and-limits-1672b34d-7043-467e-8e27-269d656771c3#ID0EBABAAA=Excel_2016-2013
Excel only allows a maximum of 15 digits of precision for each number in a cell. The reason why this number:
735999114002665788
becomes this:
735999114002665000
is because Excel is choosing to retain the 15 most significant digits in the number. This means that the ones, tens, and thousands digits are being tossed out.
By the way, this question has been asked before on SuperUser, and you can read about it here:
https://superuser.com/questions/437764/why-is-excel-truncating-my-16-digit-numbers
I have a database which houses scaled integers, the longest being 10 digits long. I am attempting to convert these to decimal values in Excel, moving the decimal point left by 4 digits, i.e. dividing by 10000.
Given that these integers are currently under the 15-digit significant figure limit, and will remain so, is there a possibility that I can encounter rounding errors?
is there a possibility that I can encounter rounding errors?
Strictly speaking I think yes. For example:
but what may be significant is that the discrepancy as shown (all formatted the same, the smaller black ones created by formula, the red ones by difference of those immediately above) is in the tenth decimal place, so hopefully not a problem.