Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

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

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.

 

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? 

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.

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

I'm curently creating  an app using interface tools to control multiple worklflows.  It would be nice if I didnt have to physically drag the interface tool to the recceiving node.  For example, right now I can click on the Left node of a join tool and it gives me the option to make connections to that tool or out of that tool wireless.  It would be nice if I could right click and have an option to select from a list of interface tool incoming connections.

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?

Running into an issue when typing from keyboard to make a selection in some dropdown lists found in tool configurations. I've replicated it in the Join, Join Multiple, and Filter tools. (Sort tool worked as expected.)  Running version 10.6.

 

• Join tool configuration.
• From "Left" dropdown start typing to select a column.
• Click off the "Left" dropdown (into "Right" for example).
• Notice that your selection in "Left" is maintained.
• Now click on another tool or in the cavas.
• Click back to the Join tool. Notice that the "Left" selection has reverted to the original field and your typed selection is lost.
• Note: you can "commit" your selection by hitting "Enter" after typing, but I don't think this extra step should be required (as evidenced by the Sort tool).

This small mis-step can have SIGNIFICANT impact if a developer assumes their join field selection was set correctly, but in fact it changed without them noticing and is resulting in incorrect joins.

 

See attached video for quick walkthrough.

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?

 

Problem: When you configure fields manually in the union control and then go back to remove a field it throws up an error that "XYZ field missing"
Solution: One needs to change the config to "arrange fields by name" then refresh before you can arrange fields manually

I would like this problem to be handled by some method that tracks for changes and warns the user rather than throw an error.

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

I think it would be great to have a tool that allows you to update a dataset with another dataset. For example, this could be used in updating an archive table on a daily basis as data changes. Having a tool available that streamlines this data operation would be helpful to simplify workflows.

 

In the tool, you would be given the option to select your primary key fields, which are the fields used to identify records. Additionally, you have the option to perform an insert, modify, or delete operation, according to the primary key fields that you choose in the configuration.

 

Obviously this is something that anybody could create a macro for if they wanted to. But it would be nice to have a tool in place so that we dont have to worry about it. I think this would be a nice use case to bolster Alteryx usage as a data engineering tool for relational database management in particular.

It would be great if we can determine the type of join operation between the fields we choose to join. For example, if we join 2 fields a and b below, we should be able to determine the join operation whether it's an 'AND' or 'OR' operation.