Re: PLEASE READ IF YOU PROGRAM: Help Continue Visual Basic

[Lonnie M.]

>...and now im making 8x as much money as i was back then.

As an employer, I don't believe that I would pay such a narrow-minded
agitator $8 dollars an hour. It would be refreshing to see you go one
post attempting to come up with something other than a four letter word
to emphasize your point. I doubt that you will change the manner in
which you communicate or the value you place on the right tools for the
right job--whether that be spreadsheets or 'novel' languages. That
is why we will always see you as a belligerent one-trick-pony.

Harlin, thank you for your positive contributions to the community

Regards--Lonnie M.

[JakeyC]

aaron -

Unlike Mr. Toews, I note that you are neither valuable, nor
professional.

If your use of spreadsheets involves re-creating them several times a
week or 'copying and pasting' 100 times over, perhaps you should get
back to basics.

Press 'F1' on your keyboard, and type the word 'macro' into the speech
bubble that the cute animated assistant offers.
You may well learn something.

[Lonnie M.]

>WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HIT 64K ROWS, KID?
> little script ******

Aaron, The fact that you would even ask the question regarding 65,536
rows, just goes to show your ignorance. Like, I said the right tool for
the right job... By the way when I hit 64K rows I would still have
1,536 to go!
I will use access, mysql, sas, oracle, notepad, or even crayons and
construction paper! Whatever serves my needs the best, but when you
make statements like "[I would never use] Excel in the real world"
-- it kind of makes you out to be the "One Trick Pony". You
obviously are not a professional, because you clearly do not understand
the needs of the "Real World", or customers in the "Real
World". You can pretend that "Real World" only needs what you are
endorsing, but you are wrong. Chances are you are the "******"
here, judging by the immaturity of your responses. And the verdict is
still out on whether or not you are the "Script ******".

Go get them tiger, the whole world is against you, but you know that
you are right! So, keep striking out in angst -- you really are a sad,
sad boy.

[Harlan Grove]

Harlan Grove wrote...
....
>But if joins aren't necessary, I suppose 11 separate queries aren't
>necessary. Should be syntactically possible to use
>
>SELECT T1.N AS N1, T2.N AS N2, T3.N AS N3, T4.N AS N4, T5.N AS N5, T6.N
>AS N6,
>T7.N AS N7, T8.N AS N8, T9.N AS N9, T10.N AS N10, T11.N AS N11, T12.N
>AS T12
>FROM T T1, T T2, T T3, T T4, T T5, T T6, T T7, T T8, T T9, T T10, T
>T11, T T12
>WHERE ((N1<>N2) AND (N1<>N3) AND (N1<>N4) AND (N1<>N5) AND (N1<>N6)
>AND (N1<>N7) AND (N1<>N8) AND (N1<>N9) AND (N1<>N10) AND (N1<>N11)
>ND (N1<>N12) AND (N2<>N3) AND (N2<>N4) AND (N2<>N5) AND (N2<>N6)
....

Poor syntax in the WHERE clause. Me bad.

I just tried this out in Access. Given T with one field named N
containing long integers from 1 to 12, Access generated the
permutations of 6 items using the query

SELECT T1.N AS N1, T2.N AS N2, T3.N AS N3, T4.N AS N4, T5.N AS N5, T6.N
AS N6
FROM T AS T1, T AS T2, T AS T3, T AS T4, T AS T5, T AS T6
WHERE ((T1.N<>T2.N) AND (T1.N<>T3.N) AND (T1.N<>T4.N) AND (T1.N<>T5.N)
AND (T1.N<>T6.N) AND (T2.N<>T3.N) AND (T2.N<>T4.N) AND (T2.N<>T5.N)
AND (T2.N<>T6.N) AND (T3.N<>T4.N) AND (T3.N<>T5.N) AND (T3.N<>T6.N)
AND (T4.N<>T5.N) AND (T4.N<>T6.N) AND (T5.N<>T6.N))
ORDER BY T1.N, T2.N, T3.N, T4.N, T5.N, T6.N;

*BUT* Access couldn't handle a similar query to generate the
permutations of 8 items using the query

SELECT T1.N AS N1, T2.N AS N2, T3.N AS N3, T4.N AS N4, T5.N AS N5, T6.N
AS N6,
T7.N AS N7, T8.N AS N8
FROM T AS T1, T AS T2, T AS T3, T AS T4, T AS T5, T AS T6, T T7, T T8
WHERE ((T1.N<>T2.N) AND (T1.N<>T3.N) AND (T1.N<>T4.N) AND (T1.N<>T5.N)
AND (T1.N<>T6.N) AND (T1.N<>T7.N) AND (T1.N<>T8.N) AND (T2.N<>T3.N)
AND (T2.N<>T4.N) AND (T2.N<>T5.N) AND (T2.N<>T6.N) AND (T2.N<>T7.N)
AND (T2.N<>T8.N) AND (T3.N<>T4.N) AND (T3.N<>T5.N) AND (T3.N<>T6.N)
AND (T3.N<>T7.N) AND (T3.N<>T8.N) AND (T4.N<>T5.N) AND (T4.N<>T6.N)
AND (T4.N<>T7.N) AND (T4.N<>T8.N) AND (T5.N<>T6.N) AND (T5.N<>T7.N)
AND (T5.N<>T8.N) AND (T6.N<>T7.N) AND (T6.N<>T8.N) AND (T7.N<>T8.N))
ORDER BY T1.N, T2.N, T3.N, T4.N, T5.N, T6.N, T7.N, T8.N;

It aborted with the message 'Not enough space on temporary disk.'

FWIW, Excel wouldn't have an easy time with that either since it'd
require 305 worksheets to hold all 20 million-odd permutations.

[Harlan Grove]

You'll appreciate this. Your worst nightmare about to come true.

http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/....aspx#comments