I created a lookup table which serves as a transmutation tool for students' grades. Here's a link of the Excel Sheet for reference.
The structure may look weird because there may be multiple lookup values which should return the same value. Now looking at the linked excel sheet, my question is why searching for a perfect score will NOT return a perfect transmutation grade (highlighted cells). Every other lookup value seems to get an accurate return value.
Thanks in advance!
LOOKUP required the lookup vector to be in ascending order. Your data deviates from this starting at row 102
Form Excell Help
Important The values in lookup_vector must be placed in ascending order: ..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ..., A-Z, FALSE, TRUE; otherwise, LOOKUP might not return the correct value. Uppercase and lowercase text are equivalent
An alternative formula would be
=INDEX(Trans!A:A,MATCH(A2,Trans!E:E,0))
Related
I'm doing performance calculations on an America's Cup AC75 yacht, and have found Named Ranges very helpful in equations I use.
On a 'Data' sheet, I now have a lot of information that I'd like to reference as a Named Range, and use via VLOOKUP(), in my 'Analysis' sheet.
A problem I have struck is that if I need to Insert/Move a column in this new Named Range, the VLOOKUP function does not "update" the column that it should return.
For example, if a cell value is "=VLOOKUP(B6, Sail_Vectors, 10, false)", but I have to insert a new column before col 10 in the Named Range "Sail_Vectors", the desired column becomes col 11 - but the lookup still returns col 10, which is now incorrect.
I may be asking too much, but just wondering if anyone might have a work-around, or something I've overlooked?
If your sheet Data has headers, you can use them in order to reference your desired column dynamically, using MATCH:
=VLOOKUP(A1,Sail_Vectors,MATCH("Header C",Data!1:1),false)
Sheet Analysis:
Sheet Data:
-- EDIT #2 -- Updated the Google Sheet again with a solution which is painfully close. Best formula I've had so far is below. --
=ARRAYFORMULA(SPLIT(UNIQUE({ARRAYFORMULA(QUERY(IF(COUNTIF(G4:G&"|||"&H4:H,ARRAYFORMULA(A4:A&"|||"&B4:B))>0,REGEXREPLACE(A4:A&"|||"&B4:B,".*",""),A4:A&"|||"&B4:B),"SELECT * WHERE Col1 IS NOT NULL"));ARRAYFORMULA(QUERY(IF(COUNTIF(G4:G&"|||"&H4:H,ARRAYFORMULA(D4:D&"|||"&E4:E))>0,REGEXREPLACE(D4:D&"|||"&E4:E,".*",""),D4:D&"|||"&E4:E),"SELECT * WHERE Col1 IS NOT NULL"))}),"|||"))
-- EDIT -- Updated the Google Sheet to more closely reflect my use case --
Pretty confident someone's asked this before but I've been Googling for a few hours now and I'm starting to lose hair. I think I've got to use a QUERY function but not 100% on that.
Demo sheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p_hqk9WydcyXQZT4bIm4DSZZnaPKbngtnZ0-laYHwk8/edit?usp=sharing
What I want to do:
I want to combine the ranges under DATA 1 and DATA 2, but I want to exclude and rows which start with the values in DATA 3.
RESULT 1 doesn't add value but shows how I was adding DATA 1 and DATA 2 together.
RESULT 2 shows the result I'm trying to get.
RESULT 3 hidden but where I got to (and doesn't add value again, sorry). I can get it mostly working, but I'd have to manually specify in the QUERY which combinations I'm looking for... and frankly my dataset is HUGE. That formula currently looks like this:
=QUERY(UNIQUE({FILTER(A4:B,NOT(ISBLANK(A4:A)));FILTER(D4:E,NOT(ISBLANK(D4:D)))}),"SELECT * WHERE NOT Col1 STARTS WITH 'a' OR NOT Col2 STARTS WITH 'v'",-1)
Hope someone can help me out! You're my only hope.
This works for your example data. It uses ARRAYFORMULA and MATCH to concatenate the two columns and LEFT to only use the first character in the match function. You might need to find a slightly smarter way to do the starts with element depending on your actual data.
=UNIQUE({FILTER(A4:B,not(isblank(A4:A)),iserror(MATCH(ARRAYFORMULA(A4:A&left(B4:B,1)),ARRAYFORMULA(G4:G&H4:H),0)));FILTER(D4:E,not(isblank(D4:D)),iserror(MATCH(ARRAYFORMULA(D4:D&left(E4:E,1)),ARRAYFORMULA(G4:G&H4:H),0)))})
Documentation:
MATCH: here
ARRAYFORMULA: here
Was also looking for how to find the set-difference between two ranges.
All my values were in one range but I reworked my solution to fit your case of needing to join ranges too.
Finding the set-difference between two ranges:
// given A1:A9 and C1:C9
// return all values in A1:A10 excluding those in C1:C10
=filter(A1:A9, not(iferror( match(A1:A9,C1:C9,0), false )), A1:A9<>"")
Finding the set-difference between two joined ranges and a third range:
// given A1:A9, B1:B9, and C1:C9
// return all values in A1:A10 and B1:B10 excluding those in C1:C10
=filter({A1:A9;B1:B9}, not(iferror( match({A1:A9;B1:B9},C1:C9,0), false )), {A1:A9;B1:B9}<>"")
Breakdown:
Goal is to get an output range that is the input range excluding all values in an "exclusion" range
MATCH: match all values that are in both your input range and your exclusion range (remaining values will produce an error)
NOT + IFERROR : convert matches to false and errors to true
FILTER: filter the input down to only the true values (i.e. whats not matched, a.k.a. remove the excluded values), and also add a 2nd condition to remove blanks
tips:
{X;Y}: unions two ranges, ; adds rows , adds columns
X<>"": true for all non-blank values in range X
I'm trying to result in the sum of E4:E22 after validating that N4:N22's values' months and years match the values in B2 and A2. If both return true, add the value in E to the total sum.
I appreciate the help!
I've tried formulas such as SUMIF =(SUMIF($E$4:$E, $N$4:$N, TEXT(N4, "MMM") = B2, $N$4:$N, TEXT(N4, "YYYY")) and various other options, but I think I may be approaching this wrong.
SUMIFS and SUMIF both work well if you don't have to modify the values in your criteria columns, but aren't always ideal in situations where you want to compare against transformed values of one or more columns.
Instead, this is a good fit for FILTER, SUM, and IFERROR:
Use FILTER to select the values you want to add.
Use regular old SUM to add them up.
Wrap in an IFERROR to default to 0 when no matches are returned by FILTER.
Another issue I noticed was that you were trying to compare a string year value returned by TEXT to the integer year value in $A$2. You could solve this by wrapping TEXT in INT to cast the string into an integer (i.e. INT(TEXT($N$4:$N, "YYYY"))), but I opted to use YEAR (i.e. YEAR($N$4:$N)) instead because it's a bit cleaner.
Give this a shot:
=IFERROR(SUM(FILTER($E$4:$E, TEXT($N$4:$N, "MMM")=$B$2, YEAR($N$4:$N)=$A$2)), 0)
I have a list of values and I need to sum the largest 10 values (in a row). I found this but I can't figure it out/get it to work:
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/docs/A5jiMqkRLYE
let's say you want to sum the 10 highest values of the range E2:EP
then try:
=sumif(E2:P2, ">="&large(E2:P2,10))
and see if that works ?
EDIT: Maybe this is a better option ? This will only sum the 10 outputted by the array_constrain. Will only work in the new google sheets, though..
=sum(array_constrain(sort(transpose($A3:$O3), 1, 0), 10 ,1))
Can you see if this works ?
This works in old google sheets too:
sum(query(sort(transpose($A3:$O3), 1, false), "select * limit 10"))
Transpose puts the data in a column, sort sorts the data in a descending order and then query selects first 10 numbers.
Unfortunately, replacing sort with "order by" in a query statement does not work, because you can not reference a column in a range returned by transpose.
The sortn function seems to be just what you need.
From the documentation linked above, it "[r]eturns the first n items in a data set after performing a sort." The data set does not have to be sorted. It takes a bunch of optional parameters as it can sort on multiple columns.
SORTN(range, [n], [display_ties_mode], [sort_column1, is_ascending1], ...)
The interesting ones for your case are n, sort_column1, and is_ascending1. Specifically, your required formula would be
sum(sortn(transpose(A3:O3), 10, 0, 1, false)))
Some notes:
This assumes your data in A3:O3. You can replace it with your range.
transpose converts the data row to a data column as required by sortn.
10 is n, indicating the number of values that you require.
0 is the value for display_ties_mode. We are ignoring this value.
1 is the value of sort_column1, telling that we want to sort the first column (after transpose).
false tells sortn to sort descending and thus pick the largest values. The default is to pick the smallest.
I have a Google sheet for tracking my weight. I have two columns: Date and Weight. While the goal is to have the weight column sorted in descending order, that doesn't always happen in reality...
The data essentially looks like this (weights changed to far lower values, of course):
Date |Weight
04/01/10|195
04/02/10|194
04/03/10|190
04/04/10|198
etc.
Anyway, I have a cell in another spot on the sheet that shows the minimum value from the weight column using this formula
=(Min(B:B))
What I would like to do is display the corresponding date cell for whatever the minimum value from the weight column is. So, with this dataset, I want to show 190 for weight and 04/03/10 for date. Is there any way to get that corresponding cell? I looked through the function reference for Google docs, but can't get anything going. I tried using some of the functions from the Lookup category, but got nowhere. Most want a cell reference, but the min() function returns a value. I think I need to somehow get min() to give me a cell reference, but I don't know how to do that. HLOOKUP() sort of seemed like it might be appropriate, but the docs were a bit spotty, and it didn't do anything but error out the cell.
Of course, I may be barking up the wrong tree entirely.
Thoughts?
I would use the following two formula's:
MIN(B2:B)
FILTER(A2:A;B2:B=minimal value)
If there are more results, they need to be included as well.
See example file I've created: Getting Corresponding Cell In Google Docs Spreadsheet?
Not barking up the wrong tree, actually very close:
=index(A:A,match(min(B:B),B:B,0))
should meet your requirement.
Working inside out: min(B:B) (as you had) returns the lowest weight (ie 190) in ColumnB.
match then finds the position of that value relative to the start of the range in which the value is searched for. So assuming Date is in A1, that returns 4, being the fourth row in ColumnB, where 190 is. The 0 in the formula is to ensure that only the position of an exact match is returned.
Now we know we need the content of the fourth row we can go looking for the value there in ColumnA with index, returning 04/03/2010.
Not all is ideal however. It is possible that a weight of 190 was achieved on separate days. It is the nature of match that where an exact match is required and found the function stops looking for any further instances. Hence as things stand 04/03/2010 will be returned for 190 however often that is the weight for a day after 04/04/2010 - unless other steps are taken, such as to delete/remove/ignore data from 04/03/2010.
You need to change the order of the column as the search column (the weight should be the first in the search array. Then you can use the VLOOKUP formula:
=VLOOKUP(C7,A:B,2,false)
C7 holds the MIN formula that you used: =(Min(A:A)) - note the column order change
one-cell solution to get minimal value with the latest day:
={MIN(B:B), TO_DATE(VLOOKUP(MIN(B:B), SORT({B:B,A:A}, 2, 0), 2, 0))}
to get all minimal values with dates:
=QUERY(A:B, "select B,A where B matches '"&MIN(B:B)&"' order by A desc", 0)