Yes, of course, wildcards... that works fine.
I find my inclination is to go to the SUMPRODUCT function because of it vast
flexibility as a calculation engine. I was wondering if you knew (or if
anyone else reading this message knows) whether the SUMPRODUCT is, by its
very nature as a universal type calculation engine, a necessarily slow
function compared to the more targeted functions (such as your COUNTIF
formula compared to my SUMPRODUCT formula)? I'm guessing the answer will
probably be "yes", but I was more interested in its "scale of slowness" as
opposed to the simple fact that it is slower.
Rick
"T. Valko" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Try this:
>
> =COUNTIF(A1:A10,"?*")
>
> --
> Biff
> Microsoft Excel MVP
>
>
> "Rick Rothstein (MVP - VB)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>I put this formula in A1...
>>
>> =IF(MOD(ROW(A1),3),"X","")
>>
>> and copied it down to A10. On my copy of XL2003, your formula, as well as
>> the other formulas that were posted (except for mine, of course<g>),
>> returns 10 instead of 7 meaning it counted the blank (looking) cells as
>> well as the non-blank looking ones.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>> "Pete_UK" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:bc29cc48-17f2-4c1c-8c7f-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Try using COUNTIF, i.e.:
>>
>> =COUNTIF(A:A,"<>")
>>
>> will count everything in column A which is not blank (or appears to be
>> blank, like a formula returning "")
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>> On Jun 22, 4:16 pm, Jakobshavn Isbrae
>> <JakobshavnIsb...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> How can I count the number of items in a column whose length exceeds
>>> zero?
>>> --
>>> jake
>>
>
>
|