Forum Posts Feed
OT: Spreadsheet software for very large files
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by 22111
Oct 8, 2014 at 12:31 PM
Franz, I see now and understand; indeed, my term of “meat” had been to strong I’m aware now. No offence whatsoever.
Steven, that would be a very non-constructive reaction, I’m thankful on the contrary you brought it up, see below.
dan7000, first I’m sorry for the muddle, my “Sheets” was distinction only between the full, and the lite version; I wasn’t aware it could be misunderstood with regards to a Google applic. Second, thank you very much for this clarification that you tried with the full version indeed, and not with Steven’s proposal of a lite version where it’s evident that your data was too heavy for it to process (they prefer selling their full version, and who could blame them, it’s just the denomination of the lite version which is a little bit misleading, but understable from their point of view, by having not only crippled it on the field of amount of data the lite version can process (which is quite unfortunate), but also by taking away its db qualities (which would make sense indeed, as the difference between lite (spreadheet-only) and the full (full db functionality) version (and thus their naming of the lite version, but which does not take into account the very important amount-of-data crippling).
This being said, the “meat” is there, now, we now know that even the full version chokes with a reasonable amount of data that it should have been able to process without difficulty, according to what they pretend for this (not cheap) full version. This is a big disappointment, but it’s been very good to know, all the more so since most of us, most of the time, do trialling with just light amounts of data (which also makes the big interest of Paul Miller’s blog, btw, for his outliner testing).
I’m sorry for not having worded my question as concise as I could have done it, and I’m very thankful for the clarifications that have come in-between; in order to add just some tiny “meat” to this discussion, allow me to say that I, having promoted the idea of ready-made, individual links anyway, instead of triggering the specific links in any given of multiple used applications, would suggest to add some code character before any link in Excel, in order for it to become unrecognizable as link for that application, and then intercept that special character when processing the links.
This way, Excel should NOT be slowed down by them anymore, and you would be able to trigger these entries as links notwithstanding; a simple leading comma should be fine (did not test this though), and if really needed, some more special special character would do the trick, e.g. the ansi character for “deceased” or some similar; as said before, the similar trick in outliners would succeed in facilitating any possible switch from one given outliner to another one.
(Of course, I’m asking myself how the presence of these (recognizable-as-such) links in the data to be imported into Panorama might have been the culprit in Panorama’s choking over import, but anyway, that import should have been flawless. And even further down the line, this would not be the very first application that possibly works flawlessly within its original Apple environment, while presenting problems in its Windows variety after code transposition, be it for memory processing or for other reasons - this is just guessing on my part of course.)
Anyway, thank you very much, dan7000, for your kind clarification.
Posted by xtabber
Oct 9, 2014 at 02:57 AM
GS-Calc from Citadel5 can supposedly handle up to 12 million rows and use up to 16 processor cores during calculations. And to get the thread back on topic, it has a hierarchical view of sheets that looks like it might provide some outlining capabilities within a workbook.
It is also ridiculously cheap, at $20.
After reading some glowing reviews earlier this year, I purchased a license, as I sometimes work with files that have many thousands of rows and have also found Excel to be slow for that kind of thing. But I haven’t had the need for it lately and haven’t had the time to try it, so I can’t tell you if it will work for the stated purpose, or at all, for that matter.