Timeline for Creating an array with a reduced set of elements matching existence of criterion in multiple columns
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 1, 2023 at 20:37 | comment | added | Eric Marceau | Thank you again, @Jim K. As I said before, I am just trying to use LibreOffice Calc to clarify/finalize the formulas on this simplistic model provided before I move onto the much more complex problem which is my true objective. I haven't touched this kind of statics analysis since my university days, so I am trying to brush off the dust/clutter of 45+ years to recall/refresh or relearn the math formulas/relationships and use the test case to make sure I have it all right. LibreOffice Base would never be a consideration for the "full-scale" analysis I will tackle, so no point working that. | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 14:30 | comment | added | Jim K |
@EricMarceau: Easy — use LibreOffice Base! Like SELECT STRUT FROM STRUTS WHERE S = 'D' OR E = 'D'. Or better, get all results at once by joining two STRUTS tables against a third (aliases A, B, and C for the STRUTS table) on B.S = A.STRUT and C.E = A.STRUT. Calc does not handle relationships well, so it's not fair to expect a clean set of results. If you're set on Calc only, then the next approach I would look at is writing a Calc macro in Basic or Python. I would not recommend writing a C++ UNO service because that requires extensive makefiles for linking.
|
|
| Nov 1, 2023 at 2:23 | comment | added | Eric Marceau | Thank you again, @Jim K. Is there any way to "output" nothing, i.e. not "add" empty string as a case response in an array position, thereby leaving only "real" responses in the array, which would then be limited to the size of actual data? | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 2:20 | vote | accept | Eric Marceau | ||
| Oct 31, 2023 at 22:05 | history | edited | Jim K | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
filter
|
| Oct 31, 2023 at 21:50 | comment | added | Jim K | @EricMarceau: See edited answer to handle that example. | |
| Oct 31, 2023 at 21:49 | history | edited | Jim K | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
check column E as well
|
| Oct 31, 2023 at 21:45 | comment | added | Eric Marceau | Is there a way to use OR to combine the results of two separate formulas in the same formula, each focusing on one of the columns "D" or "E" ? If I use a separate formula for 2 separate "arrays" (columns), is there a way to OR those two "arrays" into a single new array which has no empty cells? | |
| Oct 31, 2023 at 21:43 | comment | added | Eric Marceau | Is it possible to have the arrays limit themselves to the size of the results, not the size of the "source" lookup "array"? | |
| Oct 31, 2023 at 20:53 | comment | added | Eric Marceau | Thank you, @Jim K. I confirmed that works for the case of Node 4, getting 3 items ordered ascending, but if I replace the value of 4 with 3, I only get 1 result (3), when I am looking for 3 results again (should always be 3 for this geometric configuration), namely a match on "C" from columns D17:E22, which should give me 2,3 and 6. Is there a way to specify that? | |
| Oct 31, 2023 at 15:47 | history | answered | Jim K | CC BY-SA 4.0 |