Re: Troubel with compression of a very large Excel file
From: Thorsten Pollmeier (ThorstenPollmeier_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 03/02/05
- Next message: David McRitchie: "Re: How do you copy a cell's content verses it's formula?"
- Previous message: Bob Tarburton: "Re: How to ignore #NA in subtotals?"
- In reply to: Jim Rech: "Re: Troubel with compression of a very large Excel file"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:29:12 -0800
Hi Jim,
excellent. You are right. Your suggestion works. Thank you very much!
"Jim Rech" wrote:
> It sounds as if you have password protected your workbook. This results in
> an encrypted file that has far fewer "patterns" that compression programs
> depend in. If you must encrypt the file I'd suggest that you not do it in
> Excel but rather do it with the encryption program. I believe they all have
> an option to password protect.
>
> --
> Jim Rech
> Excel MVP
> "Thorsten Pollmeier" <ThorstenPollmeier@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:E9DF4A7C-3A4F-4BAB-848E-94805B2B49FA@microsoft.com...
> | Hi,
> |
> | When trying to compress a very large Excel file (>30MB) either with Winzip
> | or WinRar, the compression does not result in a significant reduction
> (max.
> | -3% only in the best compression mode).
> |
> | From my experience it seems to me that there is something like a
> | 'hidden/magic' limit around ~25 MB and below this a compression is not a
> | problem, but above it is. Even if the large file is reduced back to a very
> | small one, the compression still does not result anymore in a significant
> | reduction (e.g. when deleting data in the >30MB file to bring it back to
> 5MB,
> | the following compression result is still max. -3%).
> |
> | The size of the >30 MB is mainly driven by: ~2500 data sets as rows with
> 50
> | basis data information columns plus further 150 complex calculation
> columns
> | including lookup references to around ~30 parameter tables on another
> sheet.
> | Additionally, around 30 referenced charts are part of the file plus 1
> pivot
> | overview table for the result.
> |
> | The most commonly heard resolution approach is to do it at least in Access
> | and not in Excel due the data amount and required
> | calculation/parameterization effort. BUT there is a business reason behind
> | why it is done this way. Hence, does anybody has a good idea how to get
> the
> | file compressed to a size ~ 5MB (that's what I reach if the basis file is
> | <25MB)?
> |
> | I have also heard that this issue is maybe related to an 'Excel internal
> | compression algorithm'. Does anybody know something about this?
> |
> | I really appreciate your feedback/support and would like to thank you for
> | your help in advance,
> | Thorsten
>
>
>
- Next message: David McRitchie: "Re: How do you copy a cell's content verses it's formula?"
- Previous message: Bob Tarburton: "Re: How to ignore #NA in subtotals?"
- In reply to: Jim Rech: "Re: Troubel with compression of a very large Excel file"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
