OpenOffice.org Forum at OOoForum.orgThe OpenOffice.org Forum
 
 [Home]   [FAQ]   [Search]   [Memberlist]   [Usergroups]   [Register
 [Profile]   [Log in to check your private messages]   [Log in

calc row limit & column limit
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    OOoForum.org Forum Index -> OpenOffice.org Calc
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Crake
General User
General User


Joined: 02 Jan 2008
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the link huwg

I'll see if I can have a go at implementing it although won't be able to use it for work.

Also thanks since It has a link to the feature request, although 42 votes plus mine isn't very promising for getting it implemented any time soon.

Maybe I should be trying to figure out how to do the editing in a database application instead.

edit*

I'll post additional comments to the issue page at

http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=30215

Just to add I realised something I hadn't thought of, this limit isn't to do with what users want any more, it has to be increased to allow usage of excel 2007 file formats.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ed
Super User
Super User


Joined: 28 May 2003
Posts: 1041

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crake wrote:

Quote:
What is an "old limit"? The row limit is a number. There is no way of defining the "age" of a number, and numbers certainly don't have an expiry date after which they may not be used for anything!


I'm referring to the reason it was originally set to 64k rows. The 'number' wasn't arbitrarily picked it was picked due to a real limit, modern computers have had that limit raised.
The row limit is a balance between providing enough cells for the vast majority of users and keeping the system requirements manageable. The current limits do this very well. Only a very small number of users will ever need more than the current number of rows, yet all users would be disadvantaged of the system requirements were raised and saved files became larger.

Crake wrote:

Here I was referring to changing the model of how a spreadsheet operates, i.e not addressing all the cells all the time
However you allocate memory, you can't change the fact that it is impossible to store infinitely much data on a machine with finite resources.

Crake wrote:
If this isn't implemented in Open Office then I will have to stick with Excel as it fulfils my needs as a user and Open Office doesn't.
If you prefer Excel over OOo, then use Excel in preference to OOo. Different programs have different merits, and just because OOo has the industry standard arbitrary choice of row limit rather than your personal arbitrary choice doesn't make it a bad product.

Crake wrote:
I find your arguments remarkably like arguing against flying before planes due to the fact there are 'limits'.
Flying is possible, storing infinite amounts of data on a real computer in the real world isn't.

Crake wrote:

If users keep demanding more then isn't it the point of a program/developers to try and fill that demand, or we would end up with people still using DOS and punch cards.
If a tiny minority of users always demand more no matter how much they are given, how can developers possibly fill that demand? Such demands by their very nature can never be satisfied.

Crake wrote:

I have read about a 'hack' to the current version of Calc that allows a row limit to be set greater than 64k, so why isn't this planned for implementation?
This has been explained a number of times in posts that despite quoting extensively from you obviously haven't actually bothered to read.

Crake wrote:

Is it due to developers who are convinced limits exist.
"Convince" is entirely the wrong word here. "Convinced" refers to someone being deluded that something is true when it isn't. It is a reality that all computers have limits. A better word would be "Aware" that limits exist.

Of course the current arbitrary row limit could be replaced by a higher arbitrary number, but that would raise system requirements, raise file sizes, would still be an arbitrary choice, and would never satisfy the minority of users who keep demanding more no matter how much they are given.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crake
General User
General User


Joined: 02 Jan 2008
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ed, you appear to be very fixed in your attitudes and like to go on about limits, Excel now has a million rows and is no hit on a modern computer. At this very moment I have 12 excel spreadsheets open each with 5 columns and approx 90k rows, currently 1.4Gb of memory is being used by Excel.


I never said I preferred Excel, if I did I wouldn't have come looking for alternatives, I also believe in the open source way of development and as such programs can be made that suit everyone's needs without having to beg and wait for it to make monetary sense to large corporations.

You keep going on about limits, of course a real infinite number of rows isn't possible however creating the impression of this probably is. As I understand it 16 bit addressing gave the 64k rows 2^16, so along the same lines 32bit addressing would give something like 4billion?

When my brain is big enough to allow me to take in 4 billion rows of data during text manipulation then yes I will demand more rows, for now just having more than 64k would help me a lot.

I don't understand your arguments against increasing the rows, you seem to think that as people may want more rows after an increase that it isn't worth providing the increase now.


Allowing unlimited rows doesn't mean we try and force infinite rows, it means we allow the rows to increase until such a point that the performance hit and storage requirements meant a computer couldn't create any more. A balance of usability, this would also allow power users to keep increasing the hardware they had to allow them to get just the amount of rows required.


Anyway I think this discussion is moot since Open Office will have to increase row limits to allow compatibility with Excel, which I think is a continuing and major requirement.

Anyway I'm getting too far into this, I need to finish setting up OOo on my dev machine so I can see what's going on, thanks for the lively debate Ed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ed
Super User
Super User


Joined: 28 May 2003
Posts: 1041

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crake wrote:

You keep going on about limits, of course a real infinite number of rows isn't possible however creating the impression of this probably is. As I understand it 16 bit addressing gave the 64k rows 2^16, so along the same lines 32bit addressing would give something like
Both 2^16 and 2^32 are arbitrary numbers, and both are finite. Your arbitrary choice of finite number is no more "infinite" than any other finite number. What evidence have you got that your arbitrary choice of 2^32 is a better balance between capability and memory usage than the current arbitrary limit of 2^16?

I don't "keep going on about" limits. I am simply aware that they exist, and have found myself repeatedly having to point out that fact because you seem completely unable to grasp it and continue to insist that infinite rows are possible. I certainly don't "like" being forced to point the same basic fact out over and over again to someone who is completely unwilling to grasp it.

Crake wrote:

I don't understand your arguments against increasing the rows, you seem to think that as people may want more rows after an increase that it isn't worth providing the increase now.
I never said that. You were the one claiming that increasing the row limit to your personal arbitrary choice would satisfy the demands for more.

Whatever arbitrary row limit the developers decide on, someone will always claim that they need more. Replacing one arbitrary limit with a different one would not change this. What would be gained from chasing a moving target that they can never catch, with the consequence that the product has ever increasing system requirements?

Consider that the limit has already been increased from 32,000 to 65,536, no doubt in response to claims that 65,536 was "virtually infinite". Did that satisfy the demand for more? The fact that this thread exists provides the answer to that question. Since that particular arbitrary choice of "virtual infinity" didn't stop the demand, what makes you think that yours will?

It has to stop somewhere. The current limit is far more than sufficient for all but a minute number of highly exceptional uses, while being able to run happily on a normal desktop PC. Given that the limit has to be placed somewhere, the current limit would seem like a sensible choice.

Crake wrote:

Anyway I think this discussion is moot since Open Office will have to increase row limits to allow compatibility with Excel, which I think is a continuing and major requirement.
Not true. It is perfectly possible to transfer data between spreadsheets with different row limits. Spreadsheets are invariably filled from the top, and there are very few occasions when anyone ever needs more than 2^16 rows. If all the rows below row 65,535 are empty then there is nothing to import from them.

To summarise, here is a list of points and (rhetorical) questions that need to be considered before any further request for increased limits is made:

1. The current limit is more than sufficient for all but a very small minority of highly exceptional uses. Most of these exceptional cases are better served by a different type of program anyway. What do you need more rows for? Is a spreadsheet the best tool for that job?

2. Whatever the limit someone will always claim to need more. Consider that the row limit has already been increased, yet that did not stop these demands. Why do you think your choice of increase will satisfy a demand that the previous increase did not?

3. Increasing the row limit beyond the current level will involve increasing the system requirements. What proportion of user will benefit (those whose need is in the window between the current limit and your choice of limit) compared to the proportion who will suffer (all users to some extent. Consider in particular those users with older systems, and those who need to transport files on removable media or send files via limited network connections)?

4. The limit is an arbitrary choice. Is there any objective evidence that your personal arbitrary choice is a better balance than any other arbitrary number?

5. The limit has to be a finite number. No finite number is any more "virtually infinite" (whatever that may mean) than any other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
huwg
Super User
Super User


Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 890

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1024 columns it is then... (issue 31612 RESOLVED FIXED Target 3.0)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AndrewZ
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 4140
Location: Colorado, USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It works. Smile



BTW, Calc has a new look too.
_________________
<signature>
* Did you solve your problem? Do others a favor: Post the solution
* OpenOffice.org Ninja
* BleachBit
</signature>
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
fuksen
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:27 am    Post subject: yes, its very important Reply with quote

Bassically people would use database program to edit file more than 65000 row, but since excel can do it like 1 million row and more colom, then i dont see the point where openoffice should stuck in 65000 limit rows, out of the subject i would say im really gratefull for openoffice to be exist and ill be using it for all my work (except the one that give me error row limit on my analisyst work ^^). GBu guys
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fuksen
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

huwg wrote:
Crake wrote:
I have read about a 'hack' to the current version of Calc that allows a row limit to be set greater than 64k, so why isn't this planned for implementation? Is it due to developers who are convinced limits exist.
The hack is here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Calc/hacks/number_of_rows


hm.. huwg, could u kindly tutor me how to do this hack thing, coz i d/led the source.tar and edit the "addres.xxx" thing, but i'm kinda lost somewhere in the jungle. also how to compile source into install. And i think this could be great thing for people like me who need to use OoO more than 65k row.
thx Embarassed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
huwg
Super User
Super User


Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 890

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, I've no idea about compiling and building etc.

There's some information in the Wiki: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AndrewZ
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 4140
Location: Colorado, USA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Building OpenOffice.org is not a simple task: it takes a fair amount of programming skill and determination.
_________________
<signature>
* Did you solve your problem? Do others a favor: Post the solution
* OpenOffice.org Ninja
* BleachBit
</signature>
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
fuksen
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Embarassed
i still can not find anything about compiling OoO under windows
i wish someone has done it and put a link to people for download
thx for the respon guys
Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sladevi
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dunno if I will get a response since it is 4 months later, but I will post anyway.

Ed, you seem to be missing the obvious solution here. The whole argument that the arbitrary software limit is in place because of hardware limitations does not really make sense. It would easily be possible to create a worksheet program that allows one to create a gigantic worksheet that fills up an entire 1 terabyte harddrive. Of course it is possible to address all 1,000,000,000,000 bytes of the harddrive. Of course it would not be possible to hold the entire worksheet in memory, but who needs to do that, just load from the disk on demand -- it would be slow but if someone wants a 1 terabyte worksheet, they'll have to accept some slowness. This would require more overhead, but the system could simply switch over to the large storage system when the user reaches that 65537th row. Again, someone using 65537 or more rows can deal with a bit of slowdown as the system switches over to handle the increased demand.

With such an unlimited software application, do you think someone would come back to the software developers and say "Hey, how come the program won't let me make a worksheet that is too big to fit on my harddrive?! Raise the limits!" No, they would go buy more hardware. The limits are imposed by the hardware, the software can look to the hardware to determine the absolute max that the machine can support, and no one would ever complain about row limits again.

My point is, the argument should not be "there are limits" (the limits are from the hardware not the software) or even "it would make things slower and less efficient" (an efficient system could be used for smaller worksheets and a different system used when the worksheet exceeds a certain size). Instead the argument should be "it would require a lot of coding and work on the part of the developers and it would only serve a small minority of people who have this need."

I should mention that I very often find myself in need of more than 65536 rows (hence why I came across this thread), but I agree with the final argument I mentioned above, but I do not think it is a given that the number of people who need more than 65536 rows is a small minority -- I have no data on that and I wouldn't make the assumption one way or the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Villeroy
Super User
Super User


Joined: 04 Oct 2004
Posts: 10106
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Of course it is possible to address all 1,000,000,000,000 bytes of the harddrive. Of course it would not be possible to hold the entire worksheet in memory,

Spreadsheets keep all data in memory. What you describe comes close to a database (which may even spread across disk arrays).
_________________
Rest in peace, oooforum.org
Get help on https://forum.openoffice.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sladevi
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Villeroy wrote:
Spreadsheets keep all data in memory.


I know spreadsheets are currently held entirely in memory but it doesn't have to stay that way. There are pros and cons to allowing extra data to spill over to the disk if the memory can't hold it all. Alternatively the unlimited design could be limited by memory, and again the user would not be able to complain about software limitations, they could instead just buy more memory, and possibly switch up to a 64bit machine and buy even more memory.

Villeroy wrote:
What you describe comes close to a database (which may even spread across disk arrays).


True, but I don't know of any databases that have such a handy interface as a spreadsheet (admittedly my database experience is limited though). In general using a database requires knowledge of SQL and doing some more complex tasks that are built in to spreadsheets can require even more complex SQL.

Perhaps a database with a spreadsheet-like interface would be the best solution here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Villeroy
Super User
Super User


Joined: 04 Oct 2004
Posts: 10106
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, you have enlightened me. All the spreadsheet devs of the last 3 centuries where stupid.
_________________
Rest in peace, oooforum.org
Get help on https://forum.openoffice.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    OOoForum.org Forum Index -> OpenOffice.org Calc All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group