Without rushing, getting from the initial state of your table to the sorted state shown in my last image took less than 30 seconds by my Mac's clock, and would have taken less than that had I thought to select the two columns instead of clicking the first cell, then dragging the mouse to include the rest of the cells.
An alternative would be to Split the six column table into two tables, one containing the current B-C data pairs, the other containing the current E-F pairs.
With the pairs on separate tables, you can sort either set without disturbing the other. No copy/paste or temporary table needed.
Or you could Get an instant and independedt sort of either set of pairs (or both), using a second table and formulas.
Table 1 is used for data entry. columns C and F, on which the two sorts are done, must contain numerical data.
Columns B and C are sorted ascending by the values entered in Table 1.
Columns E and F are sorted ascending by the values entered in column F.
Any change in columns B or E of table 1 is automatically copied in the same column of Table 1A.
Any change in the values in columns C or F causes a resort of that column, and the column to the left of that column in Table 1A.
Entered changes are made ONLY in Table 1. All cells shown with data in Table 1-A are filled by formulas
In the image below, the two cells in Table 1 containing 1 above were edited to contain 3. the two cells containing 3 were edited to contain 9.. Table 1-A was updated automatically.
Formulas on Table 1-A:
C2, and filled down: SMALL(Table 1::C,ROW(cell)−1)
F2 and filled down: SMALL(Table 1::F,ROW(cell)−1)
This lists the values in column C ( F ) of Table 1 in ascending order in the cells on the same column in Table 1-A.
B2: INDEX(Table 1::B,MATCH(C2,Table 1::C,matching-method),column-index,area-index)
E2: INDEX(Table 1::E,MATCH(F2,Table 1::F,matching-method),column-index,area-index)
Regards,
Barry