APM: Perl, Win32 OLE, and Excel

jameschoate at austin.rr.com jameschoate at austin.rr.com
Thu Jul 23 11:03:31 PDT 2009

Besides only processing each sub-set of each row via an input filter --

Assuming each row is not dependent on the other rows, why use an output array at all? Just write it to a file. The only reason I can see writing this to an array is to keep it in memory for subsequence processing.

---- Keith Howanitz <howanitz at gmail.com> wrote: 
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM, John Warner<jwarner at texas.net> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I have a project where I am trying to filter through a large amount of data
> > from an Excel spreadsheet.  Since I don't have access to the databases where
> > the data actually resides, I have to use a spreadsheet that was given to me.
> > The spreadsheet contains 79 columns and approximately 113k rows.  The data
> > are customer satisfaction survey results along with a plethora of other
> > garbage I don't need.  I am only interested in a few columns.
> [SNIP]
> Have you tried putting a simple output when reading the xls file to
> show you how far you are getting in the file before having problems -
> maybe you are really going beyond 113k records, or it is choking on
> unusual data in one particular record.
> I wonder if you simply saved the xls file as a csv file and used the
> TEXT::CSV_XS module if you would still have troubles.
> If you want to read the whole thing into memory, you could always read
> each line, put the 3 important fields in array, and then read the next
> line so that you only end up with an array that is 113k x 3 rather
> than the whole spreadsheet in memory.
> _______________________________________________
> Austin mailing list
> Austin at pm.org
> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/austin

 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

James Choate
jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at twcable.com

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --

More information about the Austin mailing list