I have a huge "sheet application", in one row, and one of the fields, called "price" literally has 433 "IF" statements in the formula bar. Basically, there's a lot of options, and based on them, I have to change the price in the field (if user picks option 1, set price 1, and so on). I was just wondering if there was a more sane way of writing that, because
it's seriously tiring and incomprehensible
it usually doesn't even work because I have to throw a IF(AND()) and IF(OR()) from time to time which breaks my workflow, and makes debugging impossible.
Any help greatly appreciated.
instead of AND you can use multiplication * and instead of OR use sum + - that way you can easily use ARRAYFORMULA if needed. also have a look here: https://webapps.stackexchange.com/q/123729/186471 for alternatives
update
try this instead of your pstebin formula:
=ARRAYFORMULA(IFERROR(IF((D24<>"")*(E24=""),
VLOOKUP(D24, {data!A:B; data!F1:G23}, 2, 0),
VLOOKUP(D24&E24, {{data!F24:F37&data!F50; data!F28&data!F49},
{data!I23; data!I23; data!I23; data!I23:I29;
data!I29; data!I29; data!I29; data!I30; data!G28}}, 2, 0))))
and data sheet:
Related
I'm making a time-spending tracker based on the work I do every hour of the day.
Now, suppose I have 28 types of work listed in my tracker (which I also have to increase from time to time), and I have about 8 significance values that I have decided to relate to these 28 types of work, predefined.
I want that, as soon as I enter a type of work in cell 1 - I want the adjacent cell 2 to get automatically populated with a significance value (from a range of 8 values) that is pre-definitely set by me.
Every time I input a new or old occurrence of a type of work, the adjacent cell should automatically get matched with its relevant significance value & automatically get populated in real-time.
I know how to do it using IF, IFS, and IF_OR conditions, but I feel that based on the ever-expanding types of work & significance values, the above formulas will be very big, complicated, and repetitive in the future. I feel there's a more efficient way to achieve it. Also, I don't want it to be selected from a drop-down list.
Guys, please help me out with the most efficient way to handle this. TUIA :)
Also, I've added a snapshot and a sample sheet describing the problem.
Sample sheet
XLOOKUP() may work. Try-
=XLOOKUP(D2,A2:A,B2:B)
Or FILTER() function like-
=FILTER(B2:B,A2:A=D2)
You can use this formula for a whole column:
=INDEX(IFERROR(VLOOKUP(C14:C,A2:B9,2,0)))
Adapt the ranges to your actual tables in order to include in the second argument all the potential values and their significances
This is the formula, that worked for me (for anybody's reference):
I created another reference sheet, stating the types of work & their significance. From that sheet, I'm using either vlookup, filter, xlookup.Using gforms for inputting my data.
=ARRAYFORMULA(IFS(ROW(D:D)=1,"Significance",A:A="","",TRUE,VLOOKUP(D:D,Reference!$A:$B,2,0)))
I am trying to compare the numerical data in two columns in Google Sheets (say, Col. A and B) and return a count of all of the times that they vary by say, more than 1 (e.g., if A3 = 5 and B3 = 2, this should get counted). The two-column arrays will always be of equal size.
At first, I thought that either COUNTIF or COUNTIFS would be my go-to tool, but I can't get this to work with either formula. These formulas seem to handle criteria within a cell, but - as far as I can tell - can't handle criteria comparing data within two different (adjacent) cells.
Can someone help me with some super syntax work-around to get COUNTIF/COUNTIFS to work... or is there a more appropriate formula to the job (perhaps involving FILTER)?
*Quick Edit: I know I could always add an additional column, which would be very simple in this example. But my real-world spreadsheets are a lot more complex and are already suffering from column overload. A lot of other formulas are already set up around existing columns, and I was hoping to discover a more elegant solution that would allow me to come up with the count without having to add a new column for each and every comparison calculation.
=ARRAYFORMULA(IF(LEN(A:A&B:B), IF(A:A-B:B>1, 1, )+IF(B:B-A:A>1, 1, ), ))
if you want final sum instead of "per row" count use:
=SUM(ARRAYFORMULA(IF(LEN(A:A&B:B), IF(A:A-B:B>1, 1, )+IF(B:B-A:A>1, 1, ), )))
Add a third column, containing e.g. =ABS(SUM(A3-B3)). (The ABS gives you the positive difference regardless of which value is larger.)
At the bottom of that column, use COUNTIF like =COUNTIF(C1:C25, ">1") (where C1:C25 is the range of cels containing those positive differences).
I've set up a Google Sheets workbook that synthesizes data from a few different sources via manual input, IMPORTHTML and IMPORTRANGE. Once the data is populated, I'm using INDEX MATCH to filter and compare the information and to RANK each data set.
Since I have multiple data inputs, I'm running into a persistent issue of names not being written exactly the same between sources, even though they're the same person. First names are the primary culprit (i.e. Mary Lou vs Marylou vs Mary-Lou vs Mary Louise) but some last names with special symbols (umlauts, accents, tildes) are also causing errors. When Sheets can't recognize a match, the INDEX MATCH and RANK functions both break down.
I'm wondering how to better unify the data automatically so my Sheet understands that each occurrence is actually the same person (or "value").
Since you can't edit the results of an IMPORTHTML directly, I've set up "helper columns" and used functions like TRIM and SPLIT to try and fix instances as I go, but it seems like there must be a simpler path.
It feels like IFS could work but I can't figure how to integrate it. Also thinking this may require a script, which I'm just beginning to study.
Here's a simplified example of what I'm trying to achieve and the corresponding errors: Sample Spreadsheet
The first tab is attempting to pull and RANK data from tabs 2 and 3. Sample formulas from the Summary tab, row 3 (Amelia Rose):
Cell B3: =INDEX('Q1 Sales'!B:B, MATCH(A3,'Q1 Sales'!A:A,0))
Cell C3: =RANK(B3,$B$2:B,1)
Cell D3: =INDEX('Q2 Sales'!B:B, MATCH(A3,'Q2 Sales'!A:A,0))
Cell E3: =RANK(D3,$D$2:D,1)
I'd be grateful for any insight on how to best index 'Q2Sales'!B3 as the correct value for 'Summary'!D3. Thanks in advance - the thoughtful answers on Stack Overflow have gotten me this far!
to counter every possible scenario do it like this:
=ARRAYFORMULA(IFERROR(VLOOKUP(LOWER(REGEXREPLACE(A2:A, "-|\s", )),
{REGEXEXTRACT(LOWER(REGEXREPLACE('Q2 Sales'!A2:A, "-|\s", )),
TEXTJOIN("|", 1, LOWER(REGEXREPLACE(A2:A, "-|\s", )))), 'Q2 Sales'!B2:B}, 2, 0)))
I have a formula. It works - but feels like it could be made much simpler.
I have many departments across several columns. Each row has an item that we're tracking and each column has a status text that changes as we do the work.
'queue' - it's in line waiting to be done and weighs down the average
'active' - in process and provides a half value across the average
'done', 'ok'd', 'rcvd' - finished and contributes to the final average
'none' - denotes a department that's inactive on this job and should not count in the final average.
The formula is:
=iferror(((ArrayFormula(sum(countif(B3:O3,{"done","ok'd","rcvd"}))))+(countif(B3:O3,"active")/2))/(counta(B3:O3)-(countif(B3:O3,"none"))),)
The formula works but I'm looking to see if there's an easier way to approach it. Would a query or array modification work better in this scenario?
What if I wanted to add other text strings based on syntax for my current application?
Here's a link to a sample sheet with it in context.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zPFAcSxM7tYjZmlATYde7qKsDoeH6AW_xjFooOZFOf4/edit#gid=0
EDIT:
As a followup question - how do I get the same thing to work across the columns?
I did some reverse engineering to the solution and can see the formula working across the top of my sheet - but it's giving me an error:
"MMULT has incompatible matrix sizes. Number of columns in first matrix (13) must equal number of rows in second matrix (1)."
Here's the formula I've added (it's also in the linked sheet).
=ARRAYFORMULA(IF(LEN(B4:N4), MMULT(IFERROR(( N(REGEXMATCH(B4:N9, "ok'd|done|ready|rcvd"))+ N(REGEXMATCH(B4:N9, "active"))/2)/MMULT(N(REGEXMATCH(B4:N9, "[^none]")),TRANSPOSE(ROW(B4:B9)^0)), 0), TRANSPOSE(ROW(B4:B9)^0)),))
As a followup question - how do I get the same thing to work across the columns?
=ARRAYFORMULA(TRANSPOSE(IF(LEN(TRANSPOSE(B4:N4)), MMULT(IFERROR((
N(REGEXMATCH(TRANSPOSE(B4:N16), "ok'd|done|ready|rcvd"))+
N(REGEXMATCH(TRANSPOSE(B4:N16), "active"))/2)/MMULT(
N(REGEXMATCH(TRANSPOSE(B4:N16), "[^none]")),
(ROW(B4:B16)^0)), 0),
(ROW(B4:B16)^0)), )))
=ARRAYFORMULA(IF(LEN(B3:B9), MMULT(IFERROR((
N(REGEXMATCH(B3:N9, "ok'd|done|ready|rcvd"))+
N(REGEXMATCH(B3:N9, "active"))/2)/MMULT(
N(REGEXMATCH(B3:N9, "[^none]")),
TRANSPOSE(COLUMN(B3:N3)^0)), 0),
TRANSPOSE(COLUMN(B3:N3)^0)), ))
In Mathematica I have a list of point coordinates
size = 50;
points = Table[{RandomInteger[{0, size}], RandomInteger[{0, size}]}, {i, 1, n}];
and a list of cluster indices these points belong to
clusterIndices = {1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1};
what is the easiest way to split the points into two separate lists based on the clusterIndices values?
EDIT:
The solution I came up with:
pointIndices =
Map[#[[2]] &,
GatherBy[MapIndexed[{#1, #2[[1]]} &, clusterIndices], First],
{2}];
pointsByCluster = Map[Part[points, #] &, pointIndices];
It there a better way to do this?
As #High Performance Mark and #Nicholas Wilson said, I'd start with combining the two lists together via Transpose or Thread. In this case,
In[1]:= Transpose[{clusterIndices, points}]==Thread[{clusterIndices, points}]
Out[1]:= True
At one point, I looked at which was faster, and I think Thread is marginally faster. But, it only really matters when you are using very long lists.
#High Performance Mark makes a good point in suggesting Select. But, it would only allow you to pull a single cluster out at a time. The code for selecting cluster 1 is as follows:
Select[Transpose[{clusterIndices, points}], #[[1]]==1& ][[All, All, 2]]
Since you seem to want to generate all clusters, I'd suggest doing the following:
GatherBy[Transpose[{clusterIndices, points}], #[[1]]& ][[All, All, 2]]
which has the advantage of being a one liner and the only tricky part was in selecting the correct Part of the resulting list. The trick in determining how many All terms are necessary is to note that
Transpose[{clusterIndices, points}][[All,2]]
is required to get the points back out of the transposed list. But, the "clustered" list has one additional level, hence the second All.
It should be noted that the second parameter in GatherBy is a function that accepts one parameter, and it can be interchanged with any function you wish to use. As such, it is very useful. However, if you'd like to transform your data as your gathering it, I'd look at Reap and Sow.
Edit: Reap and Sow are somewhat under used, and fairly powerful. They're somewhat confusing to use, but I suspect GatherBy is implemented using them internally. For instance,
Reap[ Sow[#[[2]], #[[1]] ]& /# Transpose[{clusterIndices, points}], _, #2& ]
does the same thing as my previous code without the hassle of stripping off the indices from the points. Essentially, Sow tags each point with its index, then Reap gathers all of the tags (_ for the 2nd parameter) and outputs only the points. Personally, I use this instead of GatherBy, and I've encoded it into a function which I load, as follows:
SelectEquivalents[x_List,f_:Identity, g_:Identity, h_:(#2&)]:=
Reap[Sow[g[#],{f[#]}]&/#x, _, h][[2]];
Note: this code is a modified form of what was in the help files in 5.x. But, the 6.0 and 7.0 help files removed a lot of the useful examples, and this was one of them.
Here's a succinct way to do this using the new SplitBy function in version 7.0 that should be pretty fast:
SplitBy[Transpose[{points, clusterIndices}], Last][[All, All, 1]]
If you aren't using 7.0, you can implement this as:
Split[Transpose[{points, clusterIndices}], Last[#]==Last[#2]& ][[All, All, 1]]
Update
Sorry, I didn't see that you only wanted two groups, which I think of as clustering, not splitting. Here's some code for that:
FindClusters[Thread[Rule[clusterIndices, points]]]
How about this?
points[[
Flatten[Position[clusterIndices, #]]
]] & /#
Union[clusterIndices]
I don't know about 'better', but the more usual way in functional languages would not be to add indices to label each element (your MapIndexed) but instead to just run along each list:
Map[#1[[2]] &,
Sort[GatherBy[
Thread[ {#1, #2} &[clusterIndices, points]],
#1[[1]] &], #1[[1]][[1]] < #2[[1]][[1]] &], {2}]
Most people brought up in Lisp/ML/etc will write the Thread function out instantly is the way to implement the zip ideas from those languages.
I added in the Sort because it looks like your implementation will run into trouble if clusterIndices = {2[...,2],1,...}. On the other hand, I would still need to add in a line to fix the problem that if clusterIndices has a 3 but no 2, the output indices will be wrong. It is not clear from your fragment how you are intending to retrieve things though.
I reckon you will find list processing much easier if you refresh yourself with a hobby project like building a simple CAS in a language like Haskell where the syntax is so much more suited to functional list processing than Mathematica.
If I think of something simpler I will add to the post.
Map[#[[1]] &, GatherBy[Thread[{points, clusterIndices}], #[[2]] &], {2}]
My first step would be to execute
Transpose[{clusterIndices, points}]
and my next step would depend on what you want to do with that; Select comes to mind.