Google| Subject | Re: spreadsheet ergonomics |
| From | Snit |
| Date | 04/07/2017 18:03 (04/07/2017 09:03) |
| Message-ID | <D50D0660.9D7C4%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Follows | owl |
| Followups | Snit (40m) owl (8h & 21m) > Snit |
On 4/4/17, 10:08 PM, in article szvi3.ab@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid>wrote:
owlOh, over 24K rows... not just 2000 rows as you say above. 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.
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>wrote:Snitowl
On 4/4/17, 9:14 PM, in article ac03ga.hubu32@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid>wrote:owlSnit
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>wrote:Snitowl
On 4/4/17, 7:05 PM, in article javz903.abu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid>wrote:owlSnit
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.
Already answered this... but, on re-reading I would like to see you do this... and then to show "a sheet" with the tables on it. Would be interesting to see.
I already posted a video of it.
Missed it. Can you show the link... ONE sheet with tons of tables. Would like to see it.
I smell an argument about tables vs sheets coming on...
Anyway, here's the original vid: https://vid.me/pG0C
Here's a current screenshot with better spacing: http://imgur.com/a/ZhGwv
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.
-- 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>
03/31/2017-
-
-
