When I'm writing Excel files with jxl and use your own cell format, I get this warning: The maximum number of formatted cells has exprired. Using default format". I have about 350 cells that need to be formatted, which seems relatively little to me. Am I doing something wrong? I use loops to set my cell format. Or is there any way to increase the number of formatted cells? My whole code this long, but here is a simple example of doing formatting:
for (int=0;i<30;i++) }
ws.getWritableCell(2, i).setCellFormat(sumrow());
{
How are you creating the CellFormat objects?
What you want to do is to make sure you are reusing the CellFormat objects and not recreating them in a loop somewhere.
That is unless you really have 350 cells that each have a different formatting. Otherwise create a single CellFormat object and pass that into setCellFormat.
Make the NumberFormat to EXPONENTIAL. It worked for me. Like this:-
NumberFormats.EXPONENTIAL
Related
I'm sort of new to Web2py. I have a system that's working just fine, but I want to make an improvement regarding visualization. There's a couple of fields that use numbers (defined as double in their respective define_table methods) to represent currency, but I want them to also show with a separator for thousands, such as 183,403,293.34. I checked some documentation, but I couldn't find a direct way to handle this form of customization, though I could be missing something.
Any suggestions regarding this? Cheers!
First, if representing currency, you should use the decimal field type rather than double (some calculations using double values may yield incorrect results due to the use of floating point representations internally). However, if using SQLite, there is no distinction between decimal and double, so in that case, you might want to multiply all values by 100 and instead store integers.
In any case, to display a given numeric value with thousands separators in Python, you can do:
'{:,}'.format(myvalue)
For more details, see https://stackoverflow.com/a/10742904/440323 and https://stackoverflow.com/a/21208495/440323.
If you are using the values via web2py functionality that makes use of the field's represent function (e.g., the grid or the .render() method), you can define a custom represent function, such as:
Field('amount', 'decimal(12, 2)',
represent=lambda v, r: '{:,}'.format(v) if v is not None else '')
You could use the Python function of the locale module:
{{= locale.format ('%. 2f', your_value, grouping = True)}}
Using Google sheet 'ImportXML', I was able to extract the following data from a url(in cell A2) using:
=IMPORTXML(A2,"//a/#href[substring-after(., 'AGX:')]").
Data:
/vector/AGX:5WH
/vector/AGX:Z74
/vector/AGX:C52
/vector/AGX:A27
/vector/AGX:C6L
But, I want to extract the code after "/vector/AGX:". The code is not fixed to 3 letters and number of rows is not fixed as well.
I used =INDEX(SPLIT(AP2,"/,'vector',':'"),1,2). But it applied to only one line of data. Had to copy the index+split function to the whole column and had to insert an additional column to store the codes.
5WH
Z74
C52
A27
C6L
But, I want to be able to extract the code(s) after AGX: using ImportXML in one go. Is there a way?
Solution
Your issue is in how you are implementing the index formula. The first parameter returns the rows (in your case each element) and the second the column (in your case either AGX or the code after that).
If instead of getting a single cell we apply this formula on a range and we do not set any value for the row, the formula will return all the values achieving what you were aiming for. Here is its implementation (where F1:F5 will be the range of values you want this formula to be applied) :
=INDEX(SPLIT(F1:F5,"/,'vector',':'"),,2)
If you are interested in a solution simply using IMPORTXML and XPATH, according to the documentation you could use a substring as follows:
=IMPORTXML(A1,"//a/#href[substring-after(.,'SGX:')]")
The drawback of this is that it will return the full string and not exclusively what is after the SGX: which means that you would need to use a Google sheet formula to splitting this. This is the furthest I have achieved exclusively using XPath. In XML it would be easier to apply a forEach and really select what is after the : but I believe in sheets is more complicated if not impossible just using XPath.
I hope this has helped you. Let me know if you need anything else or if you did not understood something. :)
I'm new to AMPL and I have data in a text file in matrix form from which I need to use certain values. However, I don't know how to use the matrices directly without having to manually add column and row indexes to them. Is there a way around this?
So the data I need to use looks something like this, with hundreds of rows and columns (and several more matrices like this), and I would like to use it as a parameter with index i for rows and j for columns.
t=1
0.0 40.95 40.36 38.14 44.87 29.7 26.85 28.61 29.73 39.15 41.49 32.37 33.13 59.63 38.72 42.34 40.59 33.77 44.69 38.14 33.45 47.27 38.93 56.43 44.74 35.38 58.27 31.57 55.76 35.83 51.01 59.29 39.11 30.91 58.24 52.83 42.65 32.25 41.13 41.88 46.94 30.72 46.69 55.5 45.15 42.28 47.86 54.6 42.25 48.57 32.83 37.52 58.18 46.27 43.98 33.43 39.41 34.0 57.23 32.98 33.4 47.8 40.36 53.84 51.66 47.76 30.95 50.34 ...
I'm not aware of an easy way to do this. The closest thing is probably the table format given in section 9.3 of the AMPL Book. This avoids needing to give indices for every term individually, but it still requires explicitly stating row and column indices.
AMPL doesn't seem to do a lot with position-based input formats, probably because it defaults to treating index sets as unordered so the concept of "first row" etc. isn't meaningful.
If you really wanted to do it within AMPL, you could probably put together a work-around along these lines:
declare a single-index param with length equal to the total size of your matrix (e.g. if your matrix is 10 x 100, this param has length 1000)
edit the beginning and end of your "matrix" data file to turn it into appropriate format for a single-index parameter indexed from 1 to n
then define your matrix something like this:
param m{i in 1..nrows,j in 1..ncols} := x[j+i*(ncols-1)];
(not tested, I won't promise that I have rows and columns the right way around there!)
But you're probably better off editing the input file into one of the standard AMPL matrix formats. AMPL isn't really designed for data wrangling - you can do it in a pinch but if you're doing this kind of thing repeatedly it may be less trouble to code it in a general-purpose language e.g. Python.
I am trying to reduce the size of my data and I cannot make it work. I have data points taken every minute over 1 month. I want to reduce this data to have one sample for every hour. The problem is: Some of my runs have "NA" value, so I delete these rows. There is not exactly 60 points for every hour - it varies.
I have a 'Timestamp' column. I have used this to make a 'datehour' column which has the same value if the data set has the same date and hour. I want to average all the values with the same 'datehour' value.
How can I do this? I have tried using the if and for loop below, but it takes so long to run.
Thanks for all your help! I am new to Julia and come from a Matlab background.
======= CODE ==========
uniquedatehour=unique(datehour,1)
index=[]
avedata=reshape([],0,length(alldata[1,:]))
for j in uniquedatehour
for i in 1:length(datehour)
if datehour[i]==j
index=vcat(index,i)
else
rows=alldata[index,:]
rows=convert(Array{Float64,2},rows)
avehour=mean(rows,1)
avedata=vcat(avedata,avehour)
index=[]
continue
end
end
end
There are several layers to optimizing this code. I am assuming that your data is sorted on datehour (your code assumes this).
Layer one: general recommendation
Wrap your code in a function. Executing code in global scope in Julia is much slower than within a function. By wrapping it make sure to either pass data to your function as arguments or if data is in global scope it should be qualified with const;
Layer two: recommendations to your algorithm
Statement like [] creates an array of type Any which is slow, you should use type qualifier like index=Int[] to make it fast;
Using vcat like index=vcat(index,i) is inefficient, it is better to do push!(index, i) in place;
It is better to preallocate avedata with e.g. fill(NA, length(uniquedatehour), size(alldata, 2)) and assign values to an existing matrix than to do vcat on it;
Your code will produce incorrect results if I am not mistaken as it will not catch the last entry of uniquedatehour vector (assume it has only one element and check what happens - avedata will have zero rows)
Line rows=convert(Array{Float64,2},rows) is probably not needed at all. If alldata is not Matrix{Float64} it is better to convert it at the beginning with Matrix{Float64}(alldata);
You can change line rows=alldata[index,:] to a view like view(alldata, index, :) to avoid allocation;
In general you can avoid creation of index vector as it is enough that you remember start s and end e position of the range of the same values and then use range s:e to select rows you want.
If you correct those things please post your updated code and maybe I can help further as there is still room for improvement but requires a bit different algorithmic approach (but maybe you will prefer option below for simplicity).
Layer three: how I would do it
I would use DataFrames package to handle this problem like this:
using DataFrames
df = DataFrame(alldata) # assuming alldata is Matrix{Float64}, otherwise convert it here
df[:grouping] = datehour
agg = aggregate(df, :grouping, mean) # maybe this is all what you need if DataFrame is OK for you
Matrix(agg[2:end]) # here is how you can convert DataFrame back to a matrix
This is not the fastest solution (as it converts to a DataFrame and back but it is much simpler for me).
I am using Excel-DNA to insert formulas into about 40k rows * 10 columns, and it is quite slow.
XlCall.Excel(XlCall.xlcFormula, myFormula, new ExcelReference(row, row, column, column));
I managed to improve it dramatically by temporarily disabling the recalculation of cells on update (XlCall.Excel(XlCall.xlcCalculation, 3);), but ideally I would like to find a way to put an entire column of formulas into excel in a single operation (I am assuming this would improve the speed).
I tried passing an object[,] with my call to xlcFormula:
XlCall.Excel(XlCall.xlcFormula, excelFormulas, new ExcelReference(1, lastRow, columnNumber, columnNumber));
but it put all the formulas into a single field (separated by semicolons). Is there a way to do what I am trying to do, or am I wasting my time on something that is impossible?
I also had this trouble and figured out another way to speedup formula insertion.
Try this code:
var formula = "=1+2";
var reference = new ExcelReference(rowFirst, rowLast, columnFirst, columnLast); // it's а rectangular area, just split up your huge area to smaler ones here
XlCall.Excel(XlCall.xlcFormulaFill, new object[] { formula, reference } ));
This code is good when you want to insert the same formula into a lot of cells.
Try to use relative references in the formula.
Previous solution also works:
XlCall.Excel(XlCall.xlcEcho, false)
... but don't forget to enable echo from time to time.
You could try it with screen updating also switched off XlCall.Excel(XlCall.xlcEcho, false).
What about using the Clipboard? You could copy the formulae (with tabs between the columns) to the clipboard, and paste all at once into the Excel sheet. This would probably be as fast as you could get Excel to process the formula strings.