Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

Sometimes I find myself having to union too many tools together and get bothered with the drag-and-drop repetition. It'd be nice to be able to select multiple tools and have a "Union All" in the right-click menu that creates a union tool that is connected to the output of all the selected tools. 

It's kind of like a smarter "Insert After"

Currently there seems to be no way to "drop" or remove lines if no match is found, even if you have asked to "Match Whole Word Only". I think it would be useful to have the option to completely remove entire rows if it contains what is essentially an invalid entry.

For example:

Rows 4, 5 and 6 do not conform to the correct format that I want to find and replace. They are invalid. With Find replace as is, the output would include the invalid rows. It would be much easier if FR had two outputs, one of which includes the invalid rows, if given the config option to drop any fields that did not match the reference table.

With the Join Multiple tool, a connector line isn't colored correctly all the way to the input anchor.

I'm on version 2019.4

Example:  My Join Multiple has 4 inputs

When I click the output anchor on a Select tool that feeds into Input #1 in the Join Multiple, the connector is colored blue for only a portion of the distance to the Join Multiple tool.

Example: When I click the input anchor on the Join Multiple, the connector line isn't blue all the way to the prior Select tool.

Example of how the incorrect coloring can be confusing:

When the two tools are aligned horizontally, clicking the Select tool makes it look like it's not connected to the Join Multiple.

And clicking the Join Multiple makes it look like it's not connected to the Select.

Chris

In the Union Field, we have the option to manually configure fields.  This is currently done horizontally, which makes it difficult to see every field (if dealing with lots of columns), if we could have a tick-box, and switch this to vertical, then we could use a view similar to the select field. 

Thanks

Sam7

Hello Alteryx Team,

It would be great to have the possibility to output joined and unjoined records in the 'Join Multiple' tool into 2 separate output achors. Another possibility would be to have a switch in the tool's configuration to 'Only output records that did not join'.

The idea behind this is that sometimes you need to work only with the 'problematic' records that are not present in all of the inputs and it would be great to have an easy way how to get to them. I am aware that this can be done with a Filter tool after the Join Multiple but it would be nice to have this feature directly in the tool.

Thank you very much for considering this idea.

Regards,

Jan Laznicka

Hello,

I really apologized if this has been posted before with some other title.

I started with Alteryx month ago and I am really trying to replicate some cool stuff for which we used to write ETL code in Python and loved it.

I saw a lot of posts regarding a Join Tool for left outer join or right outer join. While using Alteryx as a new person even I was confused with the Join tool since I was missing on numbers and ratios then I used Union Tool to union left and inner anchor of the output for the desired output.

I believe there should be a checkbox in the Join Tool for the Union Tool option.

I know its just a matter of dragging one more tool on Canvas but this is regarding with more flexibility and ease of use for every Alteryx user.

Thank you.

Regards,

Owais

This is an edge case in which I have two back to back Union tools. I want to Delete and Connect Around on the first one. All of the inputs into that Union will flow into the next Union tool. Delete and Connect Around is not available from the context menu for any tool with multiple inputs. See the image for more clarification.

Hi, when using the Join tool, I sometimes wish there are separate "*Unknown" fields for each of the left and right input.

I have occasions where the left input can be dynamic(modified upstream), but the right input fixed.

It's annoying to fix all join tool's selection when there are modifications in the upstream part.

When using the Select Tool or the Join Tool and adding data from multiple data sources, I would love to see an option to color code a data field to match the data source it was derived from.  It would make it much easier to determine you are selecting the correct data field later in a workflow, especially when the multiple data sources have the same data field names.

*This is an idea from @fmvizcaino from the Portuguese Community*

• Fuzzy Match tool in Portuguese

The Join tool is one of the most used in the Community. After delivering some training for new users (Not technical) I see that it's difficult for them understands some some Joins, specially when the relationship between  the Sources it's not 1:1.

So I propose to show the Summary visually, extending the Browse current information:

- List of Left Fields Joined / Excluded

- List of Right Fields Joined / Excluded

Also It should be convenient a tool to analyze the potential relationship between the sources, to be used previous to Join...

Thanks!

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).

I am finding that I often need to use a union tool after a join to capture the entire data set I am trying to isolate. It isn't a huge deal but it does happen often enough that it seems worthwhile to consider more options to customize the join type. For example- it would be helpful to be able to configure the Join tool itself to specify a left inner or left outer join instead of needing to Union the L and J anchors afterward.  

It would be great to have the option in the Join tool to "Delete duplicate fields from Left input" and same for "Right input". the field might have the same name, but the data in them might be different.

Hi,

It would be very useful if I could delete/remove fields while using the tool Join - manual configure fields directly instead of adding a "Select" tool next.

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).

Sometimes on the "Join Tool" Interface in the Config screen.

You can not scroll down to read last item. The scroll bar is not at the bottom nor can be scrolled further down.

Please create a way to swap or change the order of the inputs and outputs for tools with two or more inputs and outputs. 

For example: When creating a workflow a join tool can end up moving to a location on the canvas that causes flow paths to cross.  To fix the overlapping paths with a simple option of change order of input and output with a simple up and down would be much better than deleting the paths and reconnecting and redefining all of the join fields.

I suggest an additional tool that would allow adding columns to the data, if and only if they do not exist already.

Currently working with data that has a dynamic set of columns can be a bit tiresome as the Select tool will not allow to select columns that have not been witnessed in the data.

Adding a tool that would ensure that certain columns are available downstream can currently be achieved by:

1. 'Append Fields' tool with a 'Text Input' tool which will always append the fields, renaming them on the fly if needed
2. 'Union' tool with a 'Text Input' tool

Both options do not seem straight forward and I expect have a performance impact.

A separate tool to achieve this seems the more user friendly and performance oriented way.