Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

Problem:
In large Alteryx workflows, renaming a column using a Select tool (or similar) causes downstream tools like Formula, Filter, Join, Sort, etc., to break or throw errors if they reference the old column name.
This means every time a column is renamed, I have to manually go through every tool that used the old name and update it - which is tedious, time-consuming, and error-prone.

 

Proposed Enhancement:
Add a feature to automatically propagate field name changes across all tools in the workflow that reference the renamed field.

This could work similarly to how modern IDEs allow you to "rename variable" across an entire codebase, or how refactoring works in platforms like Tableau Prep or Power BI.

 

Benefits:

• Saves time when making structural changes to data schemas.

• Reduces human error caused by missing updates in some tools.

• Makes workflows more scalable and easier to maintain.

• Improves usability and development speed for all users, especially in large or collaborative workflows.

Joins are a vital part to any analysis.  Relating data together is the backbone of bringing data together.  Currently the Join Tool allows the relating of one or many data fields that are assigned to be equal to each other (aka Equi-Join).

 

As creativity evolves and users aspire to construct more complex relationships, Non-Equi relationships become more prevalent.  What are Non-Equi relationships?  Simply put, they are Non-Equal.  Examples:

• Field_A  <  Field_B
• Field_C  >  Field_D
• Field_E  <=  Field_F
• Field_G  >=  Field_H
• Field_I  !=  Field_J

 

Non-Equi relationships are especially useful when working with dates that fall within a range of dates contained within two other fields.

• Example:  Target_Date BETWEEN Low_Date AND High_Date

 

Currently, to accomplish this, there are a couple options:

 

1. Generate Rows:

• You can use the Generate Rows Tool and fill in the range of values
• Then use the traditional Equi-Join matching the generated date to the Target_Date
• And persist only the INNER join stream
  
  Lots of tools to accomplish a "simple" task

<or>

 

2.  Cartesian Join:

• You can use the Append Tool to replicate every Target_Date onto every row containing the Low_Date and High_Date fields
• Filter where the appended Target_Date is between the Low_Date and High_Date
  
  Memory intensive, creating many unnecessary data rows, and may ultimately not work with large datasets

 

 

A simple solution, or alternative, would be to enhance the existing Join Tool to allow for choice in the "Join by Specific Fields" configuration section.  For example:

 

 

Adding in a drop-down menu per field pairing, the additional Non-Equi options could be added.  Equal would be the default, but users could otherwise pick the relationship type to accomplish the same "between" condition.

 

Here's a zoomed image of the look and feel:

 

 

The benefit is a much simpler configuration within the workflow, avoiding extra tools and creating a bunch of extra data rows that aren't relevant to the result.

 

If you're reading this and would like to see this enhancement to the JOIN Tool, consider a quick click on the like button.  It helps ideas like this get more exposure and lets Alteryx know this is important to you!

 

Cheers and thanks for taking the time to consider this idea!  -Jay (jrlindem)

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Acknowledgements:

 

It's important for me to point out that this isn't the first time this idea has been posted.  There are others that share the sentiment for both Non-Equi Joins as well as other enhancements to the join tool.  Here are two other, older, ideas that share some of the same needs:

• Conditional Joins in Alteryx - Alteryx Community
• Various enhancements to Join Tool - Alteryx Community

The JOIN tool could use some love.  Let's consider merging the JOIN and UNION functions into a single tool.  Instead of strictly L, J, and R outputs, we could have an option to allow for all standard SQL joins:

 

• Cross Join (Warning!!!)
• Inner Join (boring)
• Left Outer Join (saves time configuring Union)
• Right Outer Join (saves time ...)
• Full Outer Join (saves time ...)

Being able to JOIN on case-insensitive values is a big bonus (resisted urge to BOLD and change font size).

Being able to JOIN on date-range is often requested.

Being able to JOIN on numeric-range is often requested.

 

If we are combining tools, getting UNIQUE on L or R (or both) inputs would also save time.  Most JOIN errors are because the incoming (R) data contains duplicates by KEY.

 

cheers,

 

Mark

 

Hi @NicoleJ 

I want a feature to enable join by custom conditions. Currently, in Join tool, allowed condition is only equality of specific fields and specific position, however, in SQL, we can join data by much more flexible conditions like;

SELECT TableA.id FROM TableA INNER JOIN TableB ON TableA.id=TableB.id and TableA.value > TableB.value  

Of course, my idea can be easily realized by using combination of Appendix Field + Filter tool, but I meant to say is that Appendix-Fields is quite expensive operation in calculation cost, and it would generate many unnecessary records, which is annoying us in case of handling a huge dataset.

 

I suppose this kind of flexible conditions can be specified by using expression editor, thereby configuration window of this feature would look like the below image; Adding one more radio button option, and expression editor similar to one used in Filter tool.

 

Any positive/negative feedback on my idea would be appreciated. Thank you for your attention!

When building join operations in Alteryx, it can be time-consuming to manually scroll through long lists of fields to find the right one to join on, especially when working with large datasets or unfamiliar schemas.

It would be great to have a search-as-you-type filter in the Join tool’s field selection interface. Similar to the existing field selector search, this feature would allow users to start typing a field name and instantly see a filtered list of partial matches. This would significantly speed up the process of identifying and selecting the correct join fields and reduce the risk of selecting incorrect fields due to visual clutter.

The Find Replace tool has a checkbox to do a case insensitive find. It would be fabulous if the Join and Join Multiple tools had a similar checkbox.

 

I frequently have to create a new field in each data stream, convert the data I want to join on to upper case, perform the join and remove the extra "helper" fields. Using the helper field is needed in my case in order to preserve unique capitalization (i.e., acronyms within the string, etc.). 

The Join Tool tells you which records did not match (Left and Right) but it does not tell you what fields it did not match on.  This could quickly help the analyst determine which fields they need to look into to determine why there are unmatched records.  When joining on 5+ fields it becomes difficult to determine why some records did not match without manually inspecting each record which is time consuming.  The column title could be: Unmatched Field(s) and the values should be concatenated separated by commas.

Hello

Cartesian product is a common issue when joining dataset with a bad key. What I suggest is an option to check if there will be a cartesian product on the join tool.

-there is a label "Cartesian product (non join key uniqueness) detection"
-under it a drop down menu with three choices
-do nothing
-fail
-warning

Algo :
if do nothing==> well... do nothing more than actual behaviour.
if "fail" or "warning" : count distinct of join key versus count row on each side of the join. If none is unique, display a warning or an error message.

Best regards,

Simon

As an international organization we deal with clients in multiple-countries.

 

Name matches for names including Chinese characters generate a unicode conversation warning and are excluded from the fuzzy match.

 

It would be good if fuzzy match could be enhanced to handle Chinese characters.

We build some pretty robust maps with multiple connections and it would be great to copy the map tool and paste it with all of the connections when we want to tweak the map slightly but keep our original map.  It is a regular occurrence for us to have a very detailed map grouping by trade area name and then may want to have an overview map with all of the same connections but slightly different layout.  Tracking down the connections, reconnecting them and naming them accordingly takes a substantial amount of time even in the most organized of workflows.  This function would be a huge time-saver.  It would also be of value with joins and unions - anywhere you have multiple streams coming in.

I think it would be nice to be able to more easily reorder fields that you're joining by in the Join tool.

 

 

For example, I have already joined by CASS_Address and CASS_City. After I did this, I realized I wanted to go back and join on Name, too, and I want that to be first. How the tool is configured now, if I want Name to be first, I must redo all of the drop downs. I would like to be able to add Name to the next set of open drop downs then use some arrow buttons to be able to move them up in the order (similar to the Summarize tool).

I would like to be able to use the join tool to join on inequalities.  We could join two tables, A and B on A.value is >= B.value1 AND A.value <= B.value2.  This would replicate the "between" function in SQL.  The equvalent feature in Tableau is pictured below.

Alteryx is unlike many BI tools in the sense that it joins NULL. It is difficult to think of another platform that has this behaviour. Either people know about this and work around it or they don't and their joins are a ticking time bomb. Please add a check box to the Join and Join Multiple tools to allow or prevent joining NULL. This will serve to remove the need for workarounds as well as educate users about this default behaviour.

I would like Alteryx to offer a native Fuzzy Join tool that allows two datasets with completely different schemas to be joined using Fuzzy matching logic (Dice coefficient algorithm, Levenshtein distance algorithm, etc.). Any matches would be output to a new table with either exactly matched or fuzzy matched primary and secondary records. I want this tool be supported by Server as well.

On the UNION tool, allow for deselecting columns that aren't relevant.  Leave the union exactly as it is, and you could go into the manual configuration. Align the columns just as you would in the manual configuration.  The addition would be that you have the behavior like you see in a join tool where you could deselect C1, C2, C3.... Cx. 

 

Too many times I have a union and there are fields I simply don't even want to bring in, but then have to add a select tool right after in order to remove them. 

I would love a tool to be created for looking up a value in a table based on a condition. It could be called "Lookup." One input to the tool would be the lookup list, the other is the main database. Inside the tool you could enter functions that can query the lookup table and return the results either as an overwrite of an existing field in the main DB or as a new field in the main DB, similar to the options in the Multi-Row Formula tool.

 

Here is a link to my post in Community that explains the problem. The solution, in a nutshell, was to create a Join (which resulted in millions of additional rows), run the conditional formula, then filter to get rid of the millions of rows that were created by the Join so only those that met the condition remained (the original database rows).

 

Here is the text of my Community post describing my project (slightly modified for clarity):

 

Table 1:  A list of Pay Dates (the lookup table)

Table 2:  Daily timekeeper data with Week Start and Week End Date fields.

 

The goal:  To find the Pay Date in Table 1 that is greater than the Week Start Date in Table 2 and no more than 13 days after the Week End Date in Table 2.

 

[Table 2: Week Start Date] < [Table 1: Pay Date]

and [Table 2: Week End Date] < [Table 1: Pay Date]

and DateTimeDiff([Table 1: Pay Date], [Table 2: Week End Date], 'Days') <= 13

 

There are many different flows I could use this type of tool for that would save time and simplify the flow.

Thanks!

Here is the issue I have, when you are using a Join tool and you have multiple columns that you are joining on (to the point that they don't all show in the 
Configuration window), i have a tendency to use the mouse scroll wheel to move down to see additional columns i am joining on.  The mouse scroll controls different things depending on where your cursor is.  If your cursor is over the Left or Right columns then the scroll button will change the Fields you are using to join on.  I have messed up more workflows then i care to mention due to this.  I do not think it is appropriate for the scroll wheel to effect and change the fields in the configuration window and it should only be used to scroll up and down in the configuration window.  

 

 

Have you ever used a Join tool with several (or many) Join fields, looked at the the L and R outputs and wondered, why didn't these records join? When there are many columns in your data, this can be a hard question to answer. It would be very handy if Alteryx could somehow report the Field(s) that each record failed to join on (perhaps as an optional added field to the L and R outputs).

Please build individual *Unknown fields, one from the Left and one from the Right, into the Join tool. One *Unknown field cannot cover both side of the Join leading into the J output.