https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
ady changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||er...@redhat.com
Ever confirmed|0
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
BogdanB changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||108253
CC|
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
Regina Henschel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rb.hensc...@t-online.de
--- Co
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #5 from m_a_riosv ---
Created attachment 194761
--> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=194761&action=edit
Sample file to test
Attached the sample, reducing the rows up to 257, and adding a second MATCH,
w
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #6 from ady ---
(In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #4)
> If I write the same formula to G4, the formula in G4 recalculates as
> expected.
>
> If I move the formula from G4 to G2, then G2 does not recalculate, but G3
>
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #7 from ady ---
(In reply to m_a_riosv from comment #5)
> Created attachment 194761 [details]
> Sample file to test
I apologize for my ignorance. I don't see what this new attachment proves. The
only difference is that instea
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #8 from ady ---
(In reply to m_a_riosv from comment #5)
> Created attachment 194761 [details]
> Sample file to test
Well, after all, using this new attachment has one advantage. It is easier to
see the "old cache" behavior on
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
Telesto changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||bibisectRequest, regression
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #10 from ady ---
(In reply to ady from comment #8)
> Well, after all, using this new attachment has one advantage. It is easier
> to see the "old cache" behavior on the "first" located MATCH().
I am amending all my "first" l
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #11 from Regina Henschel ---
Created attachment 194767
--> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=194767&action=edit
Same calculation but different amount of formulas
I have made an example from scratch. I se
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #12 from ady ---
(In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #11)
> Created attachment 194767 [details]
> Same calculation but different amount of formulas
> The two sheets only differ, that in one sheet the
> range goes to row
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #13 from Regina Henschel ---
Created attachment 194768
--> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=194768&action=edit
XMATCH and XLOOKUP
The situation for XLOOKUP and XMATCH is worse. Not even "Recalculate Har
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #14 from ady ---
(In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #13)
> Created attachment 194768 [details]
> XMATCH and XLOOKUP
For consistency with prior tests and results, I modified _both_, the range in
the functions and the da
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #15 from PHolder ---
(In reply to ady from comment #14)
> IMHO, this report deserves a higher priority,
[EDIT: I don't have the permission to change the value though, so someone else
would have to.]
I agree, and considered
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
Telesto changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|medium |high
CC|
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
Xisco Faulí changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xiscofa...@libreoffice.org
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #17 from Xisco Faulí ---
(In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #11)
> Created attachment 194767 [details]
> Same calculation but different amount of formulas
>
> I have made an example from scratch. I see the error depend
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #18 from ady ---
(In reply to Xisco Faulí from comment #17)
> bibisect-linux64-6.1 points me to
> commit c53235ba9aab844c4b16ecf7a28429e256bace6d (patch)
> Enable binary search for numeric values again
Also in:
c3ca9d933b28
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #19 from PHolder ---
I saw somewhere where there was an option for "parallel calculations". I
wonder if that doesn't somehow cause an interaction here? Certainly I could
see where you can't allow changes to the search range
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #20 from ady ---
(In reply to Xisco Faulí from comment #17)
> but if I revert the patch locally it doesn't fix the issue...
@Xisco, is that the reason not to change this to BIBISECTED?
FWIW, there have been changes to recalc
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
Stéphane Guillou (stragu) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||balazs.varga...@gmail
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #22 from Stéphane Guillou (stragu)
---
Created attachment 194871
--> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=194871&action=edit
revert patch
The attached revert patch solves it for me.
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
Xisco Faulí changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|bibisectRequest |bibisected, bisected
Regressi
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #24 from Eike Rathke ---
Reverting that disables binary search in a sorted numeric data range again (see
commit c53235ba9aab844c4b16ecf7a28429e256bace6d message), which IMHO just cures
the symptom. The actual problem probably
24 matches
Mail list logo
