creating unique combinations

By its nature, your existing script would produce about 388 sheets of unique combinations. Since the total number of combinations exceeds 1,048,000 they can't be all combined into one sheet unless you would accept several sets of combinations in one row. So, the question is how you would like the result to be presented.

The result should be presented in its own separate sheet which the script makes. Actually the existing script does not have to be used and if you run the script you will find that it ends up with creating a separate single sheet for the results. However in the mean time it creates 'other' sheets in which to hold data so as to not alter the originals.

But like I said this script does not have to be used, if there is a better way then I am open to it.

There is no way you can have 1.6 million rows in one sheet.

And I believe you right. The idea is to find number groups that do not appear in any other sheets not to combine sheets. In other words there should less not more groups of numbers

We aren't on the same page. Take a look at the attached solution. Run the procedure 'ListUniqueCombinations'. It will produce a result within a little over 2 minutes on my laptop, that is a little slower than the previous extraction of duplicates. I think the difference results mostly from the list being longer.
In fact, the list is a lot shorter than I had anticipated. I had thought that with some 400,000 duplicates out of 1.6 million combinations more than a million should remain which I wouldn't be able to put into a single list. Actually, there are only 427,000 unique values, leaving you with some 800,000 duplicate duplicates.
Anyway, the 427,000 unique values do fit on a single tab. However, if you run other numbers and the result ever exceeds 1,048,576 rows neither Excel nor my program will be able to handle it.
EXX-130922-Unique-Combinations.xlsb

Faustulus,

At first glance the script seems to do the opposite of what I would like in this case. Therefore, let me explain. The script would compare the first set in numbers_1 with numbers_2 looking for unique combinations, that is combinations that appear in numbers_1 but not in any other sheet.

Thus it would do as follows:

compare the first set of numbers (2,6,9,11,13) with those in sheet 2 and it finds that numbers_2 also contains the same set of numbers therefore that set is NOT put into the 'report' sheet.

It then goes to the next set in numbers_1 (2,6,9,11,14) with those in sheet 2 and it finds that numbers_2 also contains the same set of numbers therefore that set is NOT put into the 'report' sheet.

and on and on unti it finds a set of numbers in numbers_1 that does NOT appear in any other sheet. For instance, (2,6,9,11,42) does not appear in numbers_2 or numbers_3 but it appears in numbers_4 and thus it also would not be included in the report sheet.

Therefore, the unique combinations in the report sheet would be found in one sheet and one sheet only. If any other sheet contains that same set of five numbers it is not included in the report sheet.

I do hope that helps to clarify what it is I am looking to accomplish.

It's not the opposite. In database termology "unique" means nett of duplicates. Now I understand that you want a list of combinations that have no duplicates. That is even easier based on he original script. I'll do it by the end of the day.

Here we go. You are already familiar with the program. The name of the procedure to run is now 'ListUnmatched'. Just let me remind you that no searching is done. The result is achieved entirely by sorting and comparing.
EXX-130924-Unmatched-Combination.xlsb

Q. Because of all the private subroutines, should I not add scripts to this file or is it possible to run other scripts from the same page?

The private declarations act to limit the availability of the procedures to other procedures within the same module. They can't be called from another module or the keyboard. They don't interfere with any other code you might put in the same module. However, this isn't my recommendation.
In an ideal world you would add functionality to a workbook by adding a code module and remove the functionality by removing the module. This is exactly what you have. Why should you wilfully destroy a perfect setup?
I recommend to put other code in other modules, preferably each subject in its own module - appropriately named - and don't worry about having too many modules. There is no such thing.
BTW, I could help you combine code for Matching and Unmatched into one module. The code is 90% identical.

Excellent Idea. I will create another request, since I believe you have earned your points here. Please look for the other request so you can earn those points as well.

P.S. I will accept this one as soon as I have time to process the script for bugs. It seems my pc runs slower than yours. So i have to dedicate all of it while I run these scripts.

Best way to do continuations is to post a link to the new thread in the preceding one.

[ https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/28249495/combine-code-for-Matching-and-Unmatched-into-one-module.html ]

Faustulus, Fanpages,

Thanks for the tip. Here's the link.


https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/28249495/combine-code-for-Matching-and-Unmatched-into-one-module.html

Errr... yeah, I know! :)

Faustulus,

The enclosed file was used to test the script and it took over 20 minutes and did not finish. I know my computer is slow but it only took 5 minutes with the original file. Please advise.
CreateCominations-1-debug.xlsb

I have seen this kind of behaviour when an array fails to write to a worksheet. In fact the program gets hung. The failure may be caused by an array that is too large or too small. I found that the command fails if the array holds a single cell only. In general, the code makes special provisions for such a case, but I've been stingy with the required test because it has to be repeated so many times.
This error, if it is what I described above, wouldn't occur with the data I had because I would have found it. I take it that the data n your test Wb are different.
These days I'm rather squeezed for time. I'll look into the problem ASAP.

Faustulus,

You're right it is a different set of data. I used it to test under different conditions.

I completely understand your time constraints, since I also have little time for R & R myself. As they say, all work no play. At least for now.

Best Regards,
Pedro

Thank you for all your hard work.