Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

While using a Find & replace we get a message that says "Info: Find Replace (3): 5893 records were found and 14318 records were not found."

Why do not you add a Flag column say "Found & Replaced?" with "Yes" for those where it is found for 5893 records and "NO" for those 14318 records where we did not find anything.

This will help everyone I believe where data comes from multiple sources and used for consolidation

I hadn't used the find/replace tool much until last Inspire conference when a presenter mentioned that it is more performant than a join.  After hearing this, I started to use the tool a bit more and can definitely see the value, especially in cases of partial matches.  That said, the one reason that I am always hesitant to use it over a join tool is that I don't have any way of seeing which records are unaffected by the find/replace operation without several additional tools.  The log gives me a record count, but in order to isolate records, I have to use a join, or filter which defeats the purpose of using the find/replace in the first place.  Also, if I have an automated process using a find/replace, I may just want to add a test or message tool to throw an error or warning if there are unmatched records (for example, if a new lookup value is added to a dataset).  

So I think that these shortcomings could be addressed in two ways:

1. Modify the find/replace tool to include a matched and unmatched output.  I realize that this one may be difficult given the configuration overhaul to a widely-used tool in the Alteryx ecosystem.  Furthermore, the requirement to union the matched and unmatched outputs may be viewed as some as a step backwards from a performance and simplicity standpoint in the tool.  

2. Add an error handling option to the tool itself (similar to the union) to give the user an option to how to handle unmatched records.  While this would only solve the concern over unmatched records slipping through the cracks, it would at least alert me that further investigation is required.

Currently it appears that the Make Group tool sets the Group by the smallest value and the Key is then anything larger than that value. 

It would be great to be able to specify which key it is that the grouping should occur within. 

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.

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

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

• Fuzzy Match tool in Portuguese

In the in-db join, add the possibility to make left-except or right-except join in addition to the 4 available options.

I have a process that joins 3 data sets to identify a specific group of data and apply certain ruling. From this created file, I need to extract the data (not the headings) from specific columns and insert into an already existing template. The template has formatting that needs to remain in order for it to function. 

Is this possible? 

When a tool's input connector is already attached to a data stream that only accepts a single connection, attempting to attach a 2nd data stream with the same fields should automatically insert a Union tool.  This would be similar to the way an Action tool is automatically added when you connect an Interface tool to another tool.

 

I propose an update to the Join Tool to allow users to select "Only right" or "only left" fields after a join.  I like the options you have there currently (e.g., select highlighted fields), it would just be nice to add these options to it. 

When using ConsumerView macro from Join tool palette for demographic data matching from Experian, the matching yield is higher than compared to Business Match marco. It would be great if the matching key for telephone number could be added to Business Match (US) tool the yield might increase and will provide more value to the firmographic data sets than it currently yields by matching just the D&B Business Names and addresses only.

If you have a field length of say 10 in a Select Tool, then you use a Left Join tool and change that length to say 4. This turns that field red - as it should.  Then add a Select tool after the Union.  It should say 4 in the second Select tool.  But instead it says 10.  If it was changed to 10 (and it wasn't) then the field s/b red.

Was thinking with my peers at work that it might be good to have join module expanded both for desktop and in-database joins.

As for desktop join: left and right join shows only these records that are exclusive to that side of operation. Would it be possible to have also addition of data that is in common?

As for in-db join: db join acts like classic join (left with matching, right with matching data). Would it be possible to get as well only-left, only-right join module?

I came across the Find Replace Tool when I needed to find values from a column in one table in a column in another table. My first instance to solve the problem was to write a batch macro with a contains function in a formula followed by a not null filter (see attachment). This worked perfectly besides the fact that it was slow. Then I got excited when I discovered the Find Replace Tool accomplishes the same thing WAY faster, but I was wrong.

What I would love is the equivalent of an SQL query like this:

SELECT

    A.1

    B.1

FROM A

    INNER JOIN

        B

    ON A.1 LIKE "%" || B.2 || "%"

which is a legal query in SQLite and is equal to the output of the attached macro. This is what I wish the Find Replace tool could do (Or a different tool), but it only finds one instance per "Find Within Field" value. The tools decision making doesn't line up with the decision-making that I need, for example it doesn't return the longest values found, instead the one with the first key to appear in the field. One way I've found to configure it better is to string a number of these together, that will give me a better result but still won't find every instance and uses 90 or so tools when I feel I should only need 1-3 to accomplish the same thing.

Instead of an Inner Join, the Find Replace is more like of Left Outer Join followed by a Unique() on A.1. Is there a way to accomplish this out-of-database in Alteryx?

When using the Levenshtein distance matching in the fuzzy match it gives you the option to select a match threshold % but does not allow for other options.  Is it possible to provide these additional options in a future release?

I have found out a minor usability bug from v 11.0.5.26351.

Feature occurs if I output data from Join tool so that some or all left outputs are unselected:

Now when using the output of the left stream in another join there occurs a small bug affecting workflow:

In the rightmost join tool Alteryx does not recognize right away that there should be multiple columns, A, B and C coming from the left output. This can be solved by going out of the tool and getting back, but this has a minor impact on the workflow.

This is pretty straightforward:

The join tool right now does only inner joins, requiring the use of the union tool to emulate outer joins.

By itself it works fine, however when having workflows involving a large number of joins and unions with lots of data in it performance is severely impacted, leaving to situations where Alteryx Designer slows down massively even with extra CPU/RAM available.

Thank you and regards,

Marco Zara

You have a slide within a slide and if your window is not big enough you don't even see both slides.  Makes absolutely no sense and is super annoying.

Hi All,

While using the Join tool, I have ran across the following which I believe if included as part of Alteryx vanilla Join Tool version would be helpful -

1) Joining two data sets on Null values should be optional or should be removed. Generally Null means the value is not known so it seems like a logical error to treat two unknown values as same, unless specified otherwise.

2) Compress whitespaces, I have come across data sets coming from two entites which are all same except for the whitespace. So I think it would help to have an option wherein multiple whitespaces are compressed into one.

3) Case sensitivity/insensitivity - This is quite common for users to convert into upper case or lower case the columns on which Join condition are based. But IT developers end up coding more and at times creating new fields just for joining purpose.

4) Null matches non null - At times the requirement is such that if the join succeeds on a particular key column, null and not null values should be considered a match (but not two non equal non null values).

5) Removal of junk characters - There should be some functionality to remove junk characters from the columns on which joins are performed.

All/Any of the above points can be made available as an additional option in conjunction with the settings available today.

Thanks,

Rohit Bajaj