https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161592
--- Comment #14 from ady <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #13) > Created attachment 194768 [details] > XMATCH and XLOOKUP For consistency with prior tests and results, I modified _both_, the range in the functions and the data table, beyond 824 rows (so, at least 813 rows of data). For simplicity, I also modified the references from relative to absolute: =XLOOKUP(0;$B$11:$B$813;$A$11:$A$813;;1;-2) Using absolute references, the results are correct and instantly displayed – only _one_ save and reload is needed; no need to save and reload then. So I cannot repro the same problem with XLOOKUP() in the same exact way as the original MATCH(). Not being a developer myself, I am searching for problems "blindly" (but still with order and with some logical steps). There might be something in common with the MATCH() case, but I do not know what exactly that would be. BTW, the double equal "==" disappears automatically when I use absolute references. Testers should be mindful of the values for testing. For instance in attachment 194768, the values used in cell B2 must always generate a descending-sorting data – no less than 1500 for cell B2 in attachment 194768; for simplicity I use 15000 to 20000. Additionally, if eventually needed for unit tests, we can create simpler spreadsheets/formulas. IMHO, this report deserves a higher priority, and more so _if_ the new XLOOKUP/XMATCH() functions are affected (even if partially/somehow). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
