Snit
On 4/7/17, 5:24 PM, in article ahvz93a.y03@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid>wrote:

owl
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>wrote:

Snit
On 4/4/17, 10:08 PM, in article szvi3.ab@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid>wrote:

owl
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>wrote:

Snit
On 4/4/17, 9:14 PM, in article ac03ga.hubu32@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid>wrote:

owl
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>wrote:

Snit
On 4/4/17, 7:05 PM, in article javz903.abu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid>wrote:

owl
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.

Snit
...

Oh, over 24K rows... not just 2000 rows as you say above.

owl
Where did I say "2000 rows"?

Snit
Sorry... you speak of 2000 tables in a row separated between 52000 tables when you have only one table... but, yes, my mistake in thinking when you were talking about units in a column, which are cells (which are in rows) you were not talking about that but about groupings you have within the table.

Again comes down to you used incorrect terms BUT I also did not interpret your poorly written description well.

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.

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.

owl
Rewritten in C. Much faster now. :)

52000 tables,

Snit
No: one table. You have only one tables. In it you have many ranges you have as separate from each other.

owl
in original format (26 columns, 2000 tables per column, summing

Snit
26 columns. Yes. But you do not have 2000 tables per column.

owl
10 rows per table):

Snit
Again: you have one table.

owl
0.159 seconds to generate (took 2.57 seconds in bash) less than one second to open

Snit
Is that better than my 11 minutes or so... to do less... and that actually does not include the few seconds past that it takes to actually show you the finished result. Oh, and if I have been doing a lot of this stuff with Numbers it slows down some... so let's just call it close to 15 minutes. :)

owl
1,404,000 tables in original format (702 columns, 2000 tables): 1.377 seconds to generate (took just over 1 minute in bash) ~6 seconds to open

New format, summing 12 labeled monthly rows filled with random dollar amounts:

52000 tables:

Snit
You mean one I assume.

owl
0.644 seconds to generate 3 seconds to open

1,404,000 tables:

Snit
Again: 1 table.

owl
964 MB sc file 25 seconds to generate 40 seconds to open 2 seconds to jump from table 0 to table 1403999

Snit
Presumably: 2 seconds to jump to A1 to ZZ27986 (or whatever) in your one table.

owl
http://imgur.com/a/5saYA

Snit
What you have listed as "table 1403999" is at cell ZZ27986 of your one table.

But this does lead to a good question: in your tables you have logical units of meaning which are not inherent in the table structure itself (other than as ranges). This is common. Do such units have a common name? Calling them "tables" is clearly incorrect. But what is a good name for such a set of ranges?