Avoiding #N/A result
in [Programming]
|
From: ozgrid.com on 28 Apr 2010 01:10 Less typing, less overhead, more efficient re-calculations. Common sense dictates it's more efficient for both Excel and the user. No doubt you disagree..and we will have to agree to disagree :) -- Regards Dave Hawley www.ozgrid.com "joel" <joel.4a43wb(a)thecodecage.com> wrote in message news:joel.4a43wb(a)thecodecage.com... > > It's far more efficient to let the #N/A happen, hide the column/row and > reference the cell with; > > ????????? Efficient is an interesting word especially in this incident! > What do you mean? Can you prove it? > > > -- > joel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > joel's Profile: http://www.thecodecage.com/forumz/member.php?u=229 > View this thread: > http://www.thecodecage.com/forumz/showthread.php?t=198752 > > http://www.thecodecage.com/forumz >
From: joel on 28 Apr 2010 05:48 A computer doesn't really doesn't care how big a formual is. the simplier formula is easy to understand, but you ae maintaining two formulas instead of one formula. And then hidding a column will make it more difficult for somebody unfamilar with the workbook to see what is happening. I don't believe in complicated formulas and often split formulas into multiple cells. But to say this is more "efficient" is my only point. I felt efficient was a poor choice of words. -- joel ------------------------------------------------------------------------ joel's Profile: http://www.thecodecage.com/forumz/member.php?u=229 View this thread: http://www.thecodecage.com/forumz/showthread.php?t=198752 http://www.thecodecage.com/forumz
From: ozgrid.com on 28 Apr 2010 06:15 Maybe not the PC but Excel certainly does care how big a formula is. I have seen many a Workbook forced to switch calculations to manual because of poor design. That's a false reading waiting to happen and catering to bad design when they should fix it. By doubling up the VLOOKUP with an IF and ISNA Function you doubling the calculation needed and the recalculation time. Not very prudent spreadsheet design. My way, is as I said, less typing, far less calculation time and hence more efficient for both Excel and the user. You wont notice the difference until it's too late. If that doesn't warrant the word "efficient" you must use a different Dictionary to me. But hey, I'm not here for a pissing contest and to be drawn into by nit-picking. -- Regards Dave Hawley www.ozgrid.com "joel" <joel.4a4hnr(a)thecodecage.com> wrote in message news:joel.4a4hnr(a)thecodecage.com... > > A computer doesn't really doesn't care how big a formual is. the > simplier formula is easy to understand, but you ae maintaining two > formulas instead of one formula. And then hidding a column will make it > more difficult for somebody unfamilar with the workbook to see what is > happening. > > I don't believe in complicated formulas and often split formulas into > multiple cells. But to say this is more "efficient" is my only point. > I felt efficient was a poor choice of words. > > > -- > joel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > joel's Profile: http://www.thecodecage.com/forumz/member.php?u=229 > View this thread: > http://www.thecodecage.com/forumz/showthread.php?t=198752 > > http://www.thecodecage.com/forumz >
From: joel on 28 Apr 2010 08:44
I see your point, but I consider what you are saying more "Good Design Practice". I usally think of efficency more as "operational" than as a part of the build process. -- joel ------------------------------------------------------------------------ joel's Profile: http://www.thecodecage.com/forumz/member.php?u=229 View this thread: http://www.thecodecage.com/forumz/showthread.php?t=198752 http://www.thecodecage.com/forumz |