Optimizing Excel formulas - SUMPRODUCT vs SUMIFS/COUNTIFS

Question

According to a couple of web sites, SUMIFS and COUNTIFS are faster than SUMPRODUCT (for example: http://exceluser.com/blog/483/excels-sumifs-or-sumproduct-which-is-faster.ht

Answer 1

1st SUMPRODUCT could become

=COUNTIFS(Sheet1!$N:$N,$A4,Sheet1!$H:$H,"1A*",Sheet1!$M:$M,"<>service catalog",Sheet1!$J:$J,"incident",Sheet1!$I:$I,"<>self-serve",Sheet1!$AK:$AK,AFM$‌​1,Sheet1!$E:$E,">="&$E$1,Sheet1!$E:$E,"<"&$E$2)

The LEFT part can be handled by a wildcard, as shown

change the second part along the same lines

Answer 2

Instead of formulas, Why not use a PivotTable to crunch the numbers? You potentially face a longer one-time hit to load the data into the PivotCache, but after that, you should find a PivotTable recalculates much faster in response to filter changes than these computationally expensive formulas. Is there any reason you're not using one?

Here's some content from a book I'm writing, where I compare SUMPRODUCT, SUMIFS, DSUM, PivotTables, the Advanced Filter, and something called Range Slicing (which uses clever combinations of INDEX/MATCH on sorted data) to conditionally sum the records in a table that contains over 1 million sales records, based on choices you make from 10 different dropdowns:

Those dropdowns allow you to filter the database by a combination of the Store, Segment, Species, Gender, Payment, Cust. History, Order Status, Delivery Instructions, Membership Type, and Order Channel columns. So there’s some pretty mammoth filtering and aggregation going on in order to reduce those 1 million records down to just one sum. The file outlines six different ways to achieve this outcome, the first three of which are shown in the screenshot below:

As you’d expect, when all those dropdowns are set to the same settings, you get exactly the same answer out of all six approaches. But what you won’t expect is just how slow SUMPRODUCT is to calculate a new answer if you change one of those dropdowns, compared to the other approaches. In fact, it turns out that the SUMIFS approach is 15 times faster than the SUMPRODUCT one at coming up with the answer on this mammoth dataset. But that’s nothing: The range slicing approach is 56 times faster!

The Range Slicing approach works by sorting your source data, and then using a series of clever formulas in helper columns to cleverly identifying exactly where any records of interest sit within that sorted data. This means that you can then directly sum just the few records that match rather than having to do a complex criteria match against hundreds of thousands of rows (or against a million rows, as in the example here).

Here’s how that looks in terms of my sample file. The number in the Rows helper column on the right-hand side shows that through some clever elimination, the SUM function at the bottom has to process only 18 rows of data (rows 292996 through 293014) rather than all 1 million rows. In other words, this is mighty efficient.

And here’s the second group of alternatives:

Yup, you can quite easily use a PivotTable here. And the PivotTable approach seems to be around 6 times faster than SUMPRODUCT—although you get a small amount of extra delay when calling up the filters, and the first time you perform a filter operation it takes quite a bit longer again, as Excel must load the PivotCache into memory. But let’s face it: Setting up the PivotTable in the first place is the easiest of any of these approaches, so it has my vote.

The DSUM approach is 12 times faster than SUMPRODUCT. That’s not as good as SUMIFS, but it’s still a significant improvement. The Advanced Filter approach is only 4 times faster than SUMPRODUCT—which isn’t really surprising because what it does is grab an extract of all records from the source data that match the criteria in that list, dump it into the spreadsheet, and then sum the result.