Advent of Code is back! Unwrap daily challenges to sharpen your Alteryx skills and earn badges along the way! Learn more now.
Free Trial

Alteryx Designer Desktop Discussions

Find answers, ask questions, and share expertise about Alteryx Designer Desktop and Intelligence Suite.
SOLVED

Requesting help with a multiple key join

mattlukoff
8 - Asteroid

Hello, I'm having trouble trying to join two files on two fields and then re-join the results with a new field based on the joined/unjoined.

 

Instructions

 

  • Join on two keys (ME # and NPI ) .
  • Joined have a new field called List = Target
  • Unjointed would be List = Specialty

 

See attached example. Expected ouput wouldn't include results of the inner joint.

 

Thanks,

Matt

3 REPLIES 3
JoeM
Alteryx Alumni (Retired)

@mattlukoff

After looking at your workflow, I decided to "waterfall" joins to continue re-joining unmatched records. I have one record difference between your desired dataset and what I created: record 1 (ME:124 and NPI Num is null). The way I constructed the workflow said that this should not join because the the other record in dataset two matches both on NPI and ME. The change can be made if desired to include that final record. Attached is my solution.

JoeM
Alteryx Alumni (Retired)

@mattlukoff

After looking at your workflow, I decided to "waterfall" joins to continue re-joining unmatched records. I have one record difference between your desired dataset and what I created: record 1 (ME:124 and NPI Num is null). The way I constructed the workflow said that this should not join because the the other record in dataset two matches both on NPI and ME. The change can be made if desired to include that final record. Attached is my solution.

mattlukoff
8 - Asteroid

@JoeM thank you. Record # 1 (ME 123) shouldn't ever be in the Speciality List because it does match to the Target List. Any of the Numbers/Keys can be considered a match by themselves alone so I removed the BOTH ME and NPI join and I think that solved the issue. Practically I guess I also needed to "Waterfall" the data too.

Labels
Top Solution Authors