Okay so i'm making a pretty basic shopping list for one of my hobby projects, and i wanted to make it look a bit fancier, hence this.
But i can't seem to figure out how to work with merged cells. If you look at this image, this is what i'm trying to do:
The first red cell should be multiplied with the first blue cell, the second red cell multiplied with the second blue cell and so on and on. All of that should then be added up and displayed in the green cell.
P.S, please ignore the € signs everywhere! The cells should be treated as regular plain numbers as i'm using file formatting to make those € signs.
Assuming no numbers elsewhere in ColumnsH:K, try:
=sumproduct(H6:H15,K6:K15)
I found the answer actually. Just treat them as normal cells (non-merged) and it works.
=ADD(MULTIPLY(H6;K6);MULTIPLY(H13;K13))
Works perfectly
Related
I'm trying to get an ARRAYFORMULA to subtract the current cell from the previous one,
but it appears that if I write
=ARRAYFORMULA((A3:A)-(A2))
The formula does not increase of one cell as it expands.
here's an example of what I get
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ci4kiNCgjBZK0Ue218IRIk5t8tSmElF5EgbIxb1_Q9w/edit?usp=sharing
it's clear that it keeps referencing A2 (but I'm not using $A$2 in the formula)
if I wouldn't use ARRAYFORMULA I would simply use
=SUM(A3-A2)
Can anyone suggest me a solution?
Your sample spreadsheet is still "View only"; so neither I nor anyone else can directly leave our solutions. However, place the following formula in D1:
=ArrayFormula({"Difference"; IF(A2:A="",,IFERROR(A2:A-OFFSET(A2:A,-1,0)))})
This will create the header (which you can change within the formula itself as you like) and all results.
(Adjusting to the location in your actual spreadsheet, as indicated in your post, this would be =ArrayFormula({"Difference";IF(L7:L="",,IFERROR(L7:L-OFFSET(L7:L,-1,0)))}).)
Couple Comments
You should accept Erik Tyler's answer as he put in more work and helped you present your problem more clearly. However these formulas allow for some more flexibility if you want any values below the rows (which now that I think about it doesn't make a lot of sense based on having a dynamic array flowing down, but conceptually maybe someone will find it useful).
Simple Formula will require one cell below your range to be blank:
=iferror(filter(filter(N(A2:A),A2:A<>"")-N(A1:A),A1:A<>""),"")
Complex Formula will allow values directly below (which I again admit seems nonsensical considering the whole point of this is a dynamic expansion down rows...)
=Filter(filter(filter(N(A2:A),A2:A<>"")-N(A1:A),A1:A<>""),ISNUMBER(filter(filter(N(A2:A),A2:A<>"")-N(A1:A),A1:A<>"")))
I gave a demo on your page.
So I have created an invoice spreadsheet in Google Sheets and have used merged cells extensively in order to create a cleaner look for the invoice.
Here is the problem that I am having: sometimes, my simple subtraction formula does not give me a correct result. The formula is supposed to subtract the Unsold balance (cell V27) from the Beginning Balance (cell R27).
Again, there is nothing wrong with the formula itself, as it works correctly 99% of the time, but every now and then, it just gives me an answer matching the Beginning Balance.
Also here is a link to a copy of the spreadsheet for anyone willing to take a look. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bf_QE-u36mo4AKyqg7Dk11gwoR0p5g0qveIazR83Xbk/edit?usp=sharing
Has anyone else ever had this situation happen to them? What could possibly be causing it, and more importantly, how can it be fixed to be more reliable?
Those of us who work professionally developing Sheets solutions have a few basic rules that we follow and encourage others not to break. Among them is "Never merge cells anywhere that calculations or comparisons will be (or ever might be) performed or assessed."
While what you're seeing might seem to be a glitch, I wouldn't call it that. Merged cells don't really get rid of the cells you don't see. For instance, your cell R27 doesn't "get rid of" cells S27, T27 and U27. It just holds them in memory, presumably empty. But remember that, inside Sheets' "memory," it doesn't "see" a grid. It's just 1's and 0's. When a grid is new and no cells are merged, Sheets "finds" each cell (using the best analogy I can give) counting over and down by 1's and 0's that are very small and tightly packed. Hold that thought...
Also note that many people are surprised when they have multiple complex calculations going on and get a returned answer that is off from what they expect in a cell further down the calculation chain. This is because Sheets uses floating decimal points. For instance, "one divided by three" is about 0.333. But in reality, that extends very far out: 0.33333333333333333333. But that can't go on forever or Sheets wouldn't be able to run. So at some point it gets truncated. Eventually, those extra decimal-extras will start to add up and bump numbers up (or down) by small degrees. All of this is handled by the same 1's and 0's that run everything else.
Back to merged cells. Finding and accurately "reading" merged cells gets less accurate the more of them you merge, because the process is relative to other cell locations in memory. After a while, the "floating decimal point" nature of Sheets starts to lose track, especially (I've observed) if you've got merged cells using the same sort of relative formula reference that you're using (e.g., a lot of your stacked merged cells are referencing yet another merged cell: BB2. So (again by analogy), Sheets is trying to "guess where it is by using clues." Perhaps it found something correctly in merged cells Z-AA-AB-AC23 that referenced merged cells BB2-BB3-BC2-BC3; but that time, you asked it to add merged cells R-S-T-U23 and V-W-X-Y23 and subtract merged cells V-W-X-Y24 ... where in the following set of merged cells, Z-AA-AB-AC24, you still asked for the BB2-BB3-BC2-BC3 reference but not the V-W-X-Y24 subtraction. And so on...
To add to this, you've got row heights changed all over the place. Some are set to specific heights, while others are fit to data.
You get the picture.
If Sheets is trying to find things by moving over and down from cell A1, but there is no regularity, sometimes, it just throws it's hands up and says, "Where the h-double-hockey-sticks am I anymore?" When you then reload the sheet or delete and replace the formula, it starts out at A1 again and plays Chutes and Ladders on the broken board and might shift one "floating" teeny-weeny 1 or 0 a different way from last time... and find what you wanted it to find again.
You also-also wind up with a sheet that is 56 columns across, when you probably only needed it to be 12 or 15. Likewise, you've extended the number of rows beyond what it needed to be. So you're slowing down your processing by a lot.
THE SHORT VERSION:
As nice as merged cells might look, they are a computing nightmare. I've been working with spreadsheets since they were invented, and I've literally never had a need for merged cells (though I've occasionally used them in areas that are purely aesthetic).
THE SOLUTIONS:
1.) Remake the sheet without merged cells.
-or-
2.) Try encompassing all of the merged-but-hidden cells in your calculations. This at least gives Sheets a wider net to cast. For instance, in your example above, you reference this formula:
=IF($BB$2<>"Rental","",R27-V27)
Try (where possible) to include the whole range you merged:
=IF($BB$2<>"Rental", "", SUM(R27:U27) - SUM(V27:Y27) )
Technically, you could also include all cells in the BB2-BB3-BC2-BC3 merge:
=IF(AND($BB$2<>"Rental", $BB$3<>"Rental", $BC$2<>"Rental", $BC$3<>"Rental"), "", SUM(R27:U27) - SUM(V27:Y27) )
However, try the shorter route with just the SUMmed merged ranges and see if it holds up. If so, stick with that. If not, go with referencing every cell in ranges you merged.
You've clearly put a lot of work into setting up this sheet. So I'm sure this isn't the easy answer you were hoping to hear. But I hope it does give you some direction for next steps.
For me, the simplest solution is to lock-reference the uppermost cell of the merged cells.
Instead of referencing in the top formula as B2, reference as $B$2. This way, your formulas in other cells will reference the same value as required.
USE LOCK-REFERENCING:
$B$2
We track workshop registrations in a google sheet and I'm trying to conditionally format a range of cells (A7:P14) based on the text in cell E7 (Eng DLO, Eng TBC, Sp DLO, Sp TBC).
I used the formula
=COUNTIF($E7:$E, "Eng DLO")
and A7:S14 turned the selected color (light purple). When I then added conditional formatting to turn dark purple with the formula
=COUNTIF($E7:$E, "Eng TBC")
the color wouldn't change when I changed the value in E7 from Eng DLO to Eng TBC.
I know the issue is that I need it to EXACTLY MATCH the text and I tried incorporating EXACT into the COUNTIF formula, but it would only highlight E7 or just A7:P7 instead of the whole selected range in the conditional format (A7:P14).
Here is a sample sheet with what I am hoping it will eventually look like once I get the conditional formatting to actually work (I removed the conditional formatting). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bn9FVTHE1OO49p4PKo6j0Qd3c0NX6pUq3vp0pHFNGVI/edit?usp=sharing
Got a couple other issues here:
The 7 is a floating reference, so you need to fix it with $. This is the reason your formula isn't working. In the next row, it would start counting in cell E8. With the $, it works, but less efficiently than it could, which brings me to point 2.
If you're only referencing one cell, just check for equality against that one cell.
To the Eng TBC, you would use
=EXACT($E$7, "Eng TBC")
Just to demonstrate a point, without the dollar sign, the next rows cells would have been checking against this:
=EXACT($E8, "Eng TBC")
Which of course would have been empty.
A More Flexible Solution
Since you probably don't want to keep having to reformat per set of cells, you can use a ROW-based approach to tackle the issue. This one, for example, assumes 8 seats per group.
=EXACT("Eng DLO",INDIRECT("E"&(8 * INT((ROW() - 7) / 8) + 7)))
Every 8 rows, it references the next multiple of 7. (Yes, INT is FLOOR, but shorter.)
I need each line in this one cell to be transposed into individual cells along the same row.
I used to be able to use something like this:
=split(regexreplace(R2, "(.{10})", "/$1"),"/")
Now I can't seem to get it
=split(A1,Char(10))
(I am not prepared to type in all of the numbers OP could not be bothered to present as text just to show the above works, nor guess what underlies the #REF!.)
I am trying to find a formula for conditional formatting a specific range of cells.
Screenshot
If any number in the yellow cells (B1:K20) matches any number in the green cells (N1:S30), highlight that number in the yellow cells with a background color. There are and will be duplicates in both the yellow and green cells. I made the cells yellow and green to make it easier to explain my problem, normally they are all blank where the highlighted numbers in B1:K20 will have a green background. Numbers range from 1 to 45.
I used to do this by making a new rule in conditional formatting for every unique number in the green cells but that is becoming very tedious as the amount of numbers in the green cells grow larger.
I have experimented for a couple hours with the MATCH formula in conditional formatting but have gotten very odd results, hoping any of the experts here could help.
Please select B1:K20 and try a CF formula rule of:
=countif(sort(unique(query({$N$1:$N$20;$O$1:$O$20;$P$1:$P$20;$Q$1:$Q$20;$R$1:$R$20;$S$1:$S$20}))),B1)
BEWARE This seems unreliable (or just plain wrong?!)
It seems the response lag for changes might be reduced with the array outside the CF formula, so perhaps in say U1:
=sort(unique(query({$N$1:$N$20;$O$1:$O$20;$P$1:$P$20;$Q$1:$Q$20;$R$1:$R$20;$S$1:$S$20})))
and instead for CF:
=countif($U$1:$U$120,B1)