Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

Other tools that I have used allow you to determine where you are caching from so instead of always having to cache at the input, you could cache after a big join.  This would be great for efficiency as having to run everything through the entire workflow every time is innefficient and I end up spending a lot of time waiting for my workflow to go through the same tools.  

Hey guys!!

I was just thinking... they might not need to fully build out a python ide, but could still reach the same objective.

You should be able to keep a python file on its own and call it in r.  By doing this, you might be able to have the json/xml handling of python with the visual/stats power of R while it being nicely bundled in your workflow.  This uses base functions in r and does a good job turning a pandas dataset to an r dataframe you can move along your workflow.

You could always just use this same idea to write a file somewhere and once it's written, your workflow will continue.  If you do, the code is literally 1 line in r...  Anyway, let me know your thoughts! 🙂

Will this work for your organization?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/using-python-r-windows-7-subhash-jaini?trk=hp-feed-article-title-publ...

I run into this a bunch.  There are some Alteryx workarounds for some use cases but not all.

Hi,

Is there an easy way through Alteryx to rename a file once I have processed it... Would like file name to be- FileName.csv.Date.Time (FileName.txt.20180424.055230)

Thanks.

In the designer it would be nice if the projection of a .shp file could automatically be read by its corresponding .prj file.

There is a great functionality in Excel that lets users "seek" a value that makes whatever chain of formulas you might have work out to a given value. Here's what Microsoft explains about goal seek: https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Use-Goal-Seek-to-find-a-result-by-adjusting-an-input-value-...

My specific example was this:

In the excel (attached), all you have to do is click on the highlighted blue cell, select the “data” tab up top and then “What-if analysis” and finally “goal seek.” Then you set the dialogue box up to look like this:

 Set cell: G9

To Value: 330

By changing cell" J6

And hit “Okay.” Excel then iteratively finds the value for the cell J6 that makes the cell G9 equal 330. Can I build a module that will do the same thing? I’m figuring I wouldn’t have to do it iteratively, if I could build the right series of formulas/commands. You can see what I’m trying to accomplish in the formulas I’ve built in Excel, but essentially I’m trying to build a model that will tell me what the % Adjustment rate should be for the other groups when I’ve picked the first adjustment rate, and the others need to change proportionally to their contribution to the remaining volume.

There doesn't really seem to be a way to do this in Alteryx that I can see. I hate to think there is something that excel can do that Alteryx can't!

Why do we need yxmd files? Why shouldn't the default be yxmz? The workflow logic is the same. If you don't add any interface tools it will run, and it you want to have a interface you can. 

If you start off with an yxmd and then decide to make it an app you now have two files to worry about.  

As a habit I no longer save things as yxmd. As soon as I start a new workflow I save it as an yxmz.

Thoughts?

The layout of tables in the Visual Query Builder should be persistent.  The placement, made by the user, should be persistent when called-up again.

Hello,

It would be nice if Alteryx had a way to create a time lapse video based on a date field.  Create a map showing data over time (day, week, year, etc) that shows it cumulative or individual for each time frame.  I needed to map a set of location points, with a date field, to show where and when they opened throughout time by each year or by each decade, so it starts with only a few locations, then keeps adding the new locations with time to show all locations at the end or present time.

Thanks,

Bob

I have encountered problem with Oracle Direct Connection tool. I have the correct host, port, service name, user name and password (the same configuration works with Toad), but Alteryx still complaints the service name is not found on tnsnames.ora (ORA-12154). Well, the reason to use Direct Connection is that I do not have admin rights on my computer to edit the file, so it seems this kind of problem can only be resolved by reaching out to our IT service to edit tnsnames.ora for me.

I would like to able to limit the data being read from the source based on the volume , such as 10GB or 5 GB etc. This will help in case of POC's where we can process portion of the dataset and not the entire dataset. This will have many different used cases as well.

It would be a huge time saver if you had an option to unselect the fields selected and select the fields not selected in the Select tool.

Just ran into this today.  I was editing a local file that is referenced in a workflow for input.

When I tried to open the workflow, Alteryx hangs.

When I closed the input file, Alteryx finished loading the workflow.

If the workflow is trying to run, I can understand this behavior but it seems odd when opening the workflow.

@KuoL 

Yes, I know, it's weird to have a situation where a decision tree decides that no branches should be created, but it happened, and caused great confusion, panic, and delay among my students.

v1.1 of the Decision Tool does a hard-stop and outputs nothing when this happens, not even the succesfully-created model object while v1.0 of the stool still creates the model ("O") and the report ("R") ... just not the "I" (interactive report). Using the v1.0 version of the tool, I traced the problem down to this call:

dt = renderTree(the.model, tooltipParams = tooltipParams)

Where `renderTree` is part of the `AlteryxRviz` library.

I dug deeper and printed a traceback.

9: stop("dim(X) must have a positive length")
8: apply(prob, 1, max) at <tmp>#5
7: getConfidence(frame)
6: eval(expr, envir, enclos)
5: eval(substitute(list(...)), `_data`, parent.frame())
4: transform.data.frame(vertices, predicted = attr(fit, "ylevels")[frame$yval],
       support = frame$yval2[, "nodeprob"], confidence = getConfidence(frame),
       probs = getProb(frame), counts = getCount(frame))
3: transform(vertices, predicted = attr(fit, "ylevels")[frame$yval],
       support = frame$yval2[, "nodeprob"], confidence = getConfidence(frame),
       probs = getProb(frame), counts = getCount(frame))
2: getVertices(fit, colpal)
1: renderTree(the.model)

The problem is that `getConfidence` pulls `prob` from the `frame` given to it, and in the case of a model with no branches, `prob` is a list. And dim(<a list>) return null. Ergo explosion.

Toy dataset that triggers the error, sample from the Titanic Kaggle competition (in which my students are competing). Predict "Survived" by "Pclass".

Dear Team

If we are having a heavy Workflow in development phase, consider that we are in the last section of development. Every time when we run the workflow it starts running from the Input Tool. Rather we can have a checkpoint tool where in the data flow will be fixed until the check point and running my work flow will start from that specific check point input.

This reduces my Development time a lot. Please advice on the same.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Gowtham Raja S

+91 9787585961 

The error message is:

Error: Cross Validation (58): Tool #4: Error in tab + laplace : non-numeric argument to binary operator

This is odd, because I see that there is special code that handles naive bayes models. Seems that the model$laplace parameter is _not_ null by the time it hits `update`. I'm not sure yet what line is triggering the error.

The CrossValidation tool in Alteryx requires that if a union of models is passed in, then all models to be compared must be induced on the same set of predictors. Why is that necessary -- isn't it only comparing prediction performance for the plots, but doing predictions separately? Tool runs fine when I remove that requirement. Theoretically, model performance can be compared using nested cross-validation to choose a set of predictors in a deeper level, and then to assess the model in an upper level. So I don't immediately see an argument for enforcing this requirement.

This is the code in question:

if (!areIdentical(mvars1, mvars2)){
        errorMsg <- paste("Models", modelNames[i] , "and", modelNames[i + 1],
                          "were created using different predictor variables.")
        stopMsg <- "Please ensure all models were created using the same predictors."
      }

As an aside, why does the CV tool still require Logistic Regression v1.0 instead of v1.1?

And please please please can we get the Model Comparison tool built in to Alteryx, and upgraded to accept v1.1 logistic regression and other things that don't pass `the.formula`. Essential for teaching predictive analytics using Alteryx.

We are big fans of the In-Database Tools and use them A LOT to speed up workflows that are dealing with large record counts, joins etc.

This is all fine, within the constraints of the database language, but an annoyance is that the workflow is harder to read, and looks messy and complicated.

A potential solution would be to have the bottom half of the icon all blue as is, but the top half to show the originaling palette for that tool.

ie  Connect In-DB - Green/Dark Blue

Filter In-DB - Light Blue/Dark Blue

Join In-DB - Purple/Dark Blue

etc.

in-DB workflows would then look as cool as they are !

Thanks

dan

This would allow for a couple of things:

Set fiscal year for datasource to a new default.

Allow for specific filters on the .tde (We use this for row level security with our datasources).

Thanks