Reduce array size

I started using a 2 column x 21 row array, wired to a FOR loop that processed the array data row by row using autoindexing. Then I reduced the array to 19 rows and set the last two rows of data to zero, and reduced the array size using the bottom sizing handle so it now looks like and should be a 2 col x 19 row array. However the FOR loop still loops as if it were a 21 row array. How can I get the autoindexing to see it as a 19 row array?

The boundaries of your indicator have no influence of the array size. It is a purely cosmetic property that does not change the underlying data.
If you are in edit mode, you would right-click on the desired element and select "data operation... delete row" or "...delete colum".
If you need to change the size of a 2D array programmatically, you could use e.g. "array subset" or "delete from array".
LabVIEW Champion . Do more with less code and in less time .

Similar Messages

  • Data type of preprend array size in Flatten To String block

    Hi 
    The data type of the preprend array size in Flatten To String block is given as I32. Is it somehow possible to reduce the data type to I8, since the width and height of my array won't exceed 255 ?. I also need to do the same in Unflatten To String as well. 
    Best regards
    Oesen

    Oesen wrote:
    Hi 
    The data type of the preprend array size in Flatten To String block is given as I32. Is it somehow possible to reduce the data type to I8, since the width and height of my array won't exceed 255 ?. I also need to do the same in Unflatten To String as well. 
    The short answer is no.  This is because the index is an I32.  NI likes to keep integers as an I32 whenever possible for reasons like this.
    Since you are dealing with a 2D array (width and height), it will actually use 2 I32s before the actual data.
    As Ravens stated, you could put in your own array sizes before the array in the string.  But it is worth saving 6 bytes?  Not likely.
    There are only two ways to tell somebody thanks: Kudos and Marked Solutions
    Unofficial Forum Rules and Guidelines

  • Quary array size maximum

    Hi All,
    I Have more than 10000 recors in source(table) -- but in block property -
    query arry size- 6
    number of records diplayed -6
    number of records buffered - 6
    when i scroll the button every six records pre query is firing ..forms refresh and network traffic taking more time..
    in code level how we make query array size set maximum....how we reduce time...
    Thanks.....

    I'm just thinking about what user will read more than 10000 records on the screen ;-)

  • MCB2370U - LPC2378 - array size

    In case of collecting data from external 3-channel ADC via SPI, what is the maximum possible array size in the program ? I tried for single channel and it appeared to be 127. However, when using 3-channel, high-pass filter (Butherworth, 2-nd order) and 4-stage 2nd-order IIR filter, it was reduced to about 30 samples (reduced memory size). I need at least 1500 samples, is it possible to put such amount of samples into single array for one channel ? I don't use multiple shift registers, but single shift register, through which the array is passed. I attached picture presenting simpler example.
    Attachments:
    vi.png ‏7 KB

    Not a bug. This is correct behavior that is consistent with other parts of LabVIEW.
    The decision to handle multi-dimensional arrays like this was made long ago and is an enshrined part of the LabVIEW language spec. It will not be changed.

  • How do I reduce the size of photos to use on website?

    Thanks to the helpful person who recommended I use Rapidweaver to build a website, I am slowly getting somewhere. It is so simple and just like Apple applications that I think I can do this.
    My problem now is that when I tried to transfer a photo from iPhoto to the draft website page it comes across so large it fills the page.
    How do I reduce the size of photos so that I can bring them across? I need to show about 20 photos on the web pages. Do they need to be in a different format and if so how do I change it to the appropriate one?
    Many thanks.
    ibook   Mac OS X (10.3.9)  

    Hi Casuarina,
    Go to this site and click on the Desktop Version Quicktime movie for a small tutorial. It will explain everything to you and you can see how you resize right within Rapid Weaver. It's really quite nifty.
    http://donmc.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=37133
    Lori

  • How can I print a pdf doc of size A3 (one page only) on A4 (on one page) front and back (actual size duplex printing) without reducing the size?

    The printing should come of actual size half on front and half on back of A4 paper.

    Hi Fakhar,
    That is not possible without reducing the size. It cant be possible at all.
    Regards,
    Ajlan Huda.

  • How do I reduce the size of a graphic in Preview and maintain resolution?

    Preview 6.0.1
    Hi,
    I have a graphic in Preview. The largest file is a .jpg at 77 KB. Information about the graphic is in the attached "Adjust Size ScreenPreview Galleon 77.
    I find that when I reduce the size of the file using Previews menu bar functions that I usually use — Screenshot>Zoom reduce>Select the smaller picture>Screenshot — that the result is an image that has lost the focus, the resolution of the original graphic.
    How do I reduce the size of a graphic and maintain resolution? I've never used the Adjust Size Screen functions.
    I'm not stuck on having to use Preview to accomplish this, but I do use Preview a lot.
    Thanks,
    Rafael
    KB.jpg".

    Choose a smaller width, the height will adjust appropriately, and the resolution will stay the same.

  • When i use pogo, on the risk game for instance, when i click on a game room, a window pops up and immdediately reduces in size, this size only shows part of the battle screen; i have tried resetting the zoom feature, no luck.

    i have seen this before on my home PC (on a lap top now) it is impossible for me to correct so i have to use IE to play pogo (i dont like IE it is slower) i click on a game, i go to a game room, and a window normally pops up showing the tables. normally i click on a seat and it takes me to a new window and the game board. NOW, when this first window pops up, it is aboout 1/4 size of my screen, but immediately reduces in size to about 1/6 of my screen. wnen the game loads, i cannot view the whole screen only part of the screen, as if it is zoomed in. I tried your suggestion and reset the zoom, no help.... i changed the zoom level manally.... no help.
    this also happens in scrabble and most other games. it is related to the java i am sure, but it only happens on firefox. How do i correct this. I have uninstalled, and reinstalled firefox. i have had this happen on the older version of firefox. it happens on multiple computers so it isnt just one computer.
    HELP!!!!!
    please

    I should have explained further. The game opens in a new window over to the upper left of my screen, leaving the original page underneath. I tried minimizing it so that I could get to my toolbar and did the View > Zoom > Reset. This has no effect. The lower portion of the game is still not showing. Using other browsers the window or frame of the game is much larger, therefore everything shows.

  • I recently downloaded a 10.6.8 update and a game program has now been reduced in size.  It's specifications are set for full screen, but it is about 1/4 of the size.  Any ideas how to fix?

    I recently downloaded a 10.6.8 update and a game program has now been reduced in size.  It's specifications are set for full screen, but it is about 1/4 of the size.  Any ideas how to fix?

    Hi, I have got the same problem but all is 1/4 the size have you fixed it?

  • FCP 6.0.5 Extremely large exported DV movies? Need to reduce output size

    I am working in DV, I have noticed on my latest 2 project, huge exported DV video files. The first was about 15 minutes and the video file was about 23 GB, the latest is about 28 minutes and the exported DV video file is 40.88 GB.
    I understand that when I export to Quicktime movie, that I need to use the export codec native to my sequence setting, it order to maintain quality. What are my options to reduce file size? Can I change the sequence settings to Apple Intermediate or Animation to reduce file size? The most important thing, I do not want any loss in quality, of what I would obtain from the native DV file.
    Thanks in advance for reading and replying to my post
    Thank You in advance for taking the time to read and reply to my Post.
    Sebastian

    The reason why I am posting my question, is I understand an hour of DV video is a 14GB file, this is why I am unclear why my video files are so large. It makes no sense to me. Why are my files not adhering to the 14GB per hour of DV rule?
    What are my option for reducing this enormous file sizes?

  • Reducing file size #2...Preview, Quartz Filter vs Adobe Pro Optimize

    Questions on reducing a pages to pdf file…I will post each question seperatly.
    2) I read that you can reduce file size of a pdf in preview with a quartz filter. I created my own filer and it worked as expected. But, I also have Adobe Acrobat Pro, with save as PDF Optimized. The pro seems to have much more capability than the quartz filters.
    Is one better that the other to use? The adobe optimize (standard settings) took it from 20 to 6 megs.
    THanks, Bob

    The Adobe Acrobat settings you chose are probably using .jpeg to reduce the file size.
    .jpegs are lossy. ie You lose detail and sharpness the more you compress the image.
    The Quartz filters are usually of very high quality, but they are a black box and you need to understand what the settings are in each one. Quartz filters are extremely powerful, fast and as I said usually high quality but I suggest you experiment and see if they meet your needs.
    Peter

  • Adobe Acrobat Pro XI 11.0.06 when I reduce file size or try to optimize, I get this error: The document could not be saved. A number is out of range. I do the exact same thing every month and it works. I did it a few days ago and it worked. I receated the

    Adobe Acrobat Pro XI 11.0.06 when I reduce file size or try to optimize, I get this error: The document could not be saved. A number is out of range. I do the exact same thing every month and it works. I did it a few days ago and it worked. I receated the pdf, I renamed it. tried to do it before I imported more pages. no go. the 16 mg pdf will normally reduce to 5 or 6

    Hi,
    Are you facing the issue with any pdf file?
    Please try updating Acrobat to 11.0.7 and check.
    You might also want to repair Acrobat and see.
    Regards,
    Rave

  • HP Photosmart C4585 - can't print test pages + copies are all reduced in size

    I have 2 problems with an HP Photosmart C4585 All-in-one printer.
    Firstly, I cannot print test prints ie 'Network Configuration Page' and the 'Run Wireless Network Test' page. It sounds as though it's printing but it produces blank sheets.
    Secondly, trying to Copy A4 originals to A4 paper the printout is always reduced in size to about a quarter of the sheet (more like photo size) - no matter which setting I select. It's also printed blue.
    The printer is not connected to a computer but I successfully print A4 documents in black, from an iPad using the HP ePrint app. So it is just the copy facility which is malfunctioning.
    Can anyone help? Thanks.

    Hi there,
    Lets eliminate software interference by downloading and running the print and scan doctor located here:
    http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c03275041&cc=us&dlc=en&lc=en
    It can fix a lot on its own and if not give a better idea of what is going on.
    Best of Luck!
    You can say thanks by clicking the Kudos Star in my post. If my post resolves your problem, please mark it as Accepted Solution so others can benefit too.

  • How to reduce the size of winsxs in windows 7 ultimate x64

    Ok so first off there are some caveats to responding to this question
    1.) Im on windows 7, so DONT refer to some "winsxs is important" vista link...
    2.) i am well aware of what windows side by side is for, and appreciate dll ____ must be bad for some... but lets be honest, professional people like me know how to keep a system in shape and not remove DLL files willy nilly and should have some kind of
    "i know what im doing" option
    3.) i know its important system files blah blah blah
    4.) i know it MUST be possible to trim this... vsp1cln.exe and compcln.exe from vista sp1 and sp2 respectively shows it CAN be done
    so in light of that, as there is no vsp1cln.exe or compcln.exe included on windows 7 i need to know if they are compatible with windows 7 if i just pull down a version from vista.
    if not, there must be some kind of method to reduce winsxs size... mine is currently at 6.2GB and that... frankly... is too big, i can understand a few GB worth, but 6! thats a whole windows xp installation!
    now, if a utility could be written that would be detrimental to compatibility but acceptable in terms of limited damage then that would be good, perhaps removing the ability to uninstall updates if for example, your system has been stable since february
    i know i wont have problems and have the retail disk if it gets fubar.
    I cant see what all that folder is for... i mean if you dont want such compatibility or the ability to install extra components without finding the disk then you should be able to remove that... i dont use a lot of the server side components, so why cant
    i remove those.
    also winsxs uses a lot of hardlinks and junctions that are reporting hard drive usage that isnt actually used as explorer counts these files repeatedly, there must be a way to tell explorer not to count those files... it might be all well and good to say
    theres 2gb not actually being used, but if windows is throwing a fit because it thinks im out of space then those 2gb might as well be 2 TB for all the use they are to me.
    lets take for example the winsxs/backup folder, there are about 60% of that taken up with FONT BACKUPS... i mean SERIOUSLY! ... you backed up the FONTS!?
    WHY!?!?
    There must be more things like those that could go
    perhaps someone could get back in touch and explain why microsoft windows is the ONLY operating system that seems to think that if it doesnt have 80 hundred million backups and spares it wont work... linux does not have this side by side thing, nor does
    macosx

    Okay maybe some background on the root of the problem would help.
    Windows XP (and Windows 2000) used a fast and great mechanism called Hotfix Installer (Update.exe) to install updates. Updates installed in very little time. If you wanted to further reduce update times on Windows XP, you could just temporarily stop the
    System Restore service and updates would install at crazy speeds. Note that this is not recommended for novice users who don't know advanced recovery methods, as some updates can sometimes cause your system to stop booting so you cannot even uninstall them.
    The method the Hotfix Installer used was simple, it just installed a new version of files to be updated at %windir%\system32 and %windir%\system32\dllcache (the Windows File Protection cache). For files that were in use, a restart copied them from dllcache
    to the system32 folder. This is simple file-based servicing. The hotfix installer (Update.exe) also supported various command line switches like /nobackup which means not to backup files it patches. Again, this is not recommended for novice users as some updates
    can screw your system even after the comprehensive testing Microsoft does before releasing them. But if you won't be uninstalling any updates (usually one only requires uninstalling updates if they cause problems), you could save a ton of disk space by not
    backing up the files it patched. The Hotfix Installer backed up files to C:\Windows\$Uninstall$KBxxxxxx folders so even if you did back up the files at install time, they could be safely deleted after a few days if no stability issues were found after using
    Windows with the newest updates applied. Update.exe also supported the very important and convenient ability to slipstream a service pack or update into the original Windows setup files using the /s switch.    
    When Microsoft was developing Windows Vista, they realized that components had gotten too many interdepencies on each other and to service each file reliably without breaking another component that relied on it, Microsoft introduced what they called as Component
    Based Servicing (CBS). You can read all about it in a much more technical way at The Servicing Guy's blog. What CBS does basically is it installs all files of the entire operating system, including all languages into C:\Windows\WinSxS and then it hard-links
    files from there to C:\Windows\system32. This has the benefit of not having to insert the OS disc to add or remove any components, and some other advantages as well like offline servicing of a Windows Vista or Windows 7 image. But the design introduces a major
    disadvantage of taking up a lot of hard disk space. Whenever an update is installed, it no longer installs it to C:\Windows\system32 and C:\Windows\system32\dllcache like Windows XP's hotfix installer (Update.exe) did. Instead, it updates the files in C:\Windows\WinSxS.
    Now, Windows keeps multiple copies of the same file but with different version in WinSxS if it is used by more than one Windows component. The higher the number of components, that many number of times the file exists in C:\Windows\WinSxS. When a Windows Vista
    update (.MSU) is installed, the components get updated, each and every one, instead of the files and the worst part is it still maintains the older superseded previous versions of components in WinSxS so the user would be able to uninstall updates. Microsoft
    does say that some sort of "scavenging" or deleting older copies of components takes place but is scarce on the details. The scavenging seems to take place automatically at certain intervals in Windows 7 but not in Windows Vista. In Windows Vista, you have
    to add or remove any Windows component for the scavenging to take place. And Microsoft says the scavenging will free up some disk space but in practice, on my system, I see my free disk space only decreasing on Vista as I remove or add any component. Windows
    does not give the user an option to not backup the earlier versions of components like Windows XP's /nobackup switch in Hotfix Installer did. As as you install more and more updates on your system, they will take more and more disk space. This is one of the
    primary reasons Windows Vista and Windows 7 are so bloated. Another reason for them being so bloated is the DriverStore that these OSes store. All drivers that are shipped with the OS and the OEM ones which you download and which are installed for a particular
    system are staged in C:\Windows\System32\DriverStore. But let's not go there for now.
    Now, an important thing to note is that the size of the WinSxS folder is not what Explorer or the dir command report, it is far less but is misreported by Explorer because it counts the hard links more than once when calculating size. That does not mean,
    the size of WinSxS is not causing real-world disk space problems on numerous Windows Vista/7 systems in use today. Microsoft's ingenious recommendation to this problem of ever growing disk consumption is to install fewer updates to keep the size of the servicing
    store under control. Of course, users cannot deny installing security updates and leave their system open to security holes. What they can do is install less optional updates, the ones that Microsoft releases on the fourth Tuesday of every month and also install
    less of the hotfixes that are available by request from a Knowledge Base article. In short, you have to trade the number of bugs fixed in the OS by installing hotfixes at the cost of enormous amounts of disk space. The whole servicing stack is a total downgrade
    to Windows XP's update.exe method. It causes heavy disk thrashing and slow logoffs/logons while Windows configures these updates at the Welcome Screen. Many systems are unable to boot because of failed updates. Another disadvantage of the "new" servicing stack
    (and the redesigned Setup mechanism of Windows Vista) is the inability to do a true slipstream of service packs and hotfixes.
    The time it takes to actually install these hotfixes online compared to Windows XP is also completely unacceptable. When you start installing an MSU update, it spends a lot of time determining whether the update applies to your system. Then, the update itself
    takes much longer to install compared to Windows XP's Update.exe (hours instead of minutes if you are installing dozens of updates through a script). Finally, that post-installation process ("Configuring updates... Do not turn off your computer") takes several
    minutes before shut down followed by a second post-installation process (configuration) upon restart before logon that also takes also several minutes and thrashes the disk.
    I can install the entire SP3 for Windows XP in about 10 minutes after downloading the full installer. I can also install a slipstreamed-with-SP3 copy of Windows XP is about 45 minutes on a modern fast PC. In contrast, Windows Vista or Windows 7 do install
    relatively quickly (in just about 15-20 minutes) on a modern PC but installing the service packs and updates takes more time than anything on XP did. Not only can service packs not be slipstreamed, but Vista Service Packs are not even cumulative, which means
    if you clean install Windows Vista today, you have to install SP1 first which takes about 90 minutes, then SP2 which takes less time, then all the post-SP2 updates which do take hours to install. If you really HAVE to use Windows 7 or Windows Vista, you are
    stuck with this slow update non-sense as Microsoft does not even acknowledge that there is any slowdown or loss of functionality in the new servicing mechanism. The fact remains: MSU updates are slow as **** and take too much time and as Windows 7/Vista get
    older and Microsoft stops producing service packs, a clean install is going to take longer and longer to bring it up-to-date with all patches installed. Is is worth wasting your time on an OS whose servicing mechanism Microsoft completely screwed up? I once
    again recommend you read more about the servicing stack and how it operates at The Servicing Guy's blog:http://blogs.technet.com/b/joscon/. To fix this messed up servicing stack, Microsoft also offers a tool
    called CheckSUR for your system if it finds “inconsistencies in the servicing store”.
    Microsoft's Windows Vista and Windows 7 products are not engineered with disk space in mind. It causes a problem, especially for SSDs which are still low capacity and very expensive. The only hope is that Microsoft again completely redesigns this servicing
    mechanism in a future Windows release so it would not cause this growing disk space consumption issue, speed up installation of updates by an order of magnitude, not slow down logon and logoff, not prevent systems becoming unusable because of failed updates
    being stuck at a particular stage and allow true slipstreaming.
    Microsoft's response to this is vague - they simply state "Windows 7's servicing is more reliable than Windows XP" but they cannot acknowledge it is a million times slower and still unreliable...slow to the point of being unusable and sometimes leaving systems
    in an unbootable damaged state. Of course they know all this too but can't admit it since it makes their latest OSes look poor. Moving from a very simple and fast update mechanism that worked to a complex one that requires endless “configuring” and repair
    through CheckSUR is a product engineering defect.
    Take a look at servicing-related complaints in Microsoft's own forums:
    1.
    Very slow install of updates to Windows 7
    2.
    Windows 7 - Updates are very slow
    3.
    Windows 7 Ultimate, it takes long time configuring updates
    4.
    "Preparing To Configure Windows. Please Do Not Turn Off Your Computer"
    5.
    Very slow update install at shutdown (Windows 7 Home Premium)
    6.
    Why does my computer run so slow when installing updates?
    7.
    Every time the computer is shut down, it always says installing update do not turn off your computer
    8.
    Computer is working slow and wants to do windows updates all the time
    9.
    Windows 7 Update install time taking a very long time
    10.
    Windows wants to install 6 updates every time I log off or put the computer in sleep mode
    11.
    Problem In Configuring Windows Updates at the time of Startup
    12.
    Computer really slow after latest updates
    13.
    Windows hangs up in "configuring updates"
    14.
    Why can't windows 7 install updates?
    15.
    Every time computer is shut down, receive Installing updates, do not shut off....
    16.
    How long does it take for the Windows 7 Home Premium updates take?
    17.
    Windows 7 "Installing Update 2 of 2" for 12 hours now
    18.
    Updates causes endless reboots
    19.
    Updates stuck installing for over 24 hrs. Computer does not boot
    20.
    Cannot load Windows 7 after installing 2 critical updates
    A proper solution to this problem would be to completely re-engineer and rewrite the servicing mechanism so it operates with the speed, reliability and pain-free operation of the XP servicing mechanism.
    I don't see this situation improving in Windows 8 either. Good luck with your Windows tablet taking hours to install service packs and updates. Now, do iPads take that long to install updates?
    So fact is Microsoft understates or conveniently hides the real system requirements to keep a Windows 7/Vista system running. System requirements are install time may be 15 GB of free disk space but over time, this number increasing is unacceptable, especially
    for people's SSDs which are running out of disk space!

  • Reduce File Size in Acrobat Pro (9.5.5) Corrupts Graphics in PDF Documents - shows up as black image

    Whenever I use Reduce File Size in Acrobat Pro (9.5.5), sometimes some of the images (not all) get corrupted and show up as a black image in the new document.
    Actually, the new reduced document looks okay when viewed in Acrobat, but the problem shows up when viewed in the Preview application on the Mac.
    I'm using Acrobat 9.5.5 with Mac OS 10.8.6
    I've tried re-importing the graphic into a new graphic box, which didn't work.  Thinking there may be some type of corruption with the actual graphic file, I then tried viewing the graphic, then taking a screenshot of it to create a completely new file, and then re-importing the new graphic file into the original document (created in Adobe In Design 5.0.4).  I then export the new document as a pdf, and brought it into Acrobat Pro to do the Reduce File Size.  Same thing happens - black box appears where the graphic was.
    I then tried using the Reduce File Size within the Save As function of the Preview application on the Mac - while the graphic remains intact, many of the other graphics in the document are "reduced" too much, to the point where the image quality is seriously degraded, and therefore not usable.
    Any other ideas?

    Hi Anoop,
    I can share the graphic file, but not the pdf which contains it (as it contains confidential information) - thanks!

Maybe you are looking for