Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

Originally posted here: https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Data-Sources/Input-Data-Tool-Can-we-control-use-of-Cursors/m-p/5871...

 

Hi there,

 

I've profiled a simple query using SQL Server Profiler (Query: Select * from northwind.dbo.orders; row limit: 107; read Uncommitted: true) and interestingly it opens up a cursor if you connect via ODBC or SQL Native; but not by OleDB - full queries and profile details are on the discussion thread above.

 

However - in some circumstances a cursor is not usable - e.g. https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Data-Sources/Error-SQL-Execute-Cursors-Not-supported-on-Clustered-C... because SQL doesn't allow cursors on columnstore indexed tables & columns

 

Is there any way (even if we need to manually adjust via the XML settings) to ask Alteryx not to create the cursor and execute directly on the server as written?

 

Thank you

Sean

@AdamR_AYX,

 

Limit conversion warning allows for a minimum of 1 message.  Can we set the minimum to 0 to completely ignore the message?

 

Perhaps we can allow warning messages a similar function as ERROR messages and allow the designer to Ignore, Warn or Cancel?

 

ConvError: Imputation (441): Tool #104: No demand: 0.200000000000031 had more precision than a double. Some precision was lost.

ConvError: Summarize (456): Data: 0.360000000004675 had more precision than a double. Some precision was lost.

 

End: Designer x64: Finished running FP Model - Marquee Crew v3.yxmd in 32.3 seconds with 16 field conversion errors and 4 warnings

 

Thanks,

 

Mark

Hopefully this is the right place to post this and it hasn't been suggested already but I think it would be useful to add a numeric indicator to the formula tool to show how many formulas are being done with one tool. It would be useful when going back into or sharing workflows that a user would know more than one function is being carried out at that point. Currently I change the annotation to show how many but I think it would be useful if the icon changed dynamically. Below is a mockup of what I think it should look like.

Thanks,

Pete

 

When a custom (bespoke for @Chrislove) macro is created, I would like the option to create an annotation that goes along with the tool.  This is entirely cosmetic, but might help users to recognize the macro.

 

Thanks,

Mark

Scenario:

Upstream tools end in a Summarize Tool that has set of records with the following fields:  EmailAddress, AttachmentUNCPath.  So you get a bunch of recipients with various attachments.  Each recipient can have different attachments, and this will change each time it's run.  In other words, it's fully dynamic.  

 

If the same recipient has multiple attachments, then it would be nice to group the recipient and just separate the attachments with a semi-colon (or whatever) in the same field.  Essentially creating one record per recipient, and therefore one email per recipient, and having the Email Tool attach each file.  In other words, mbarone@paychex.com gets one email with 5 attachments.  And next week maybe only 3 attachments, and so on.  

 

Currently the only way I see to accomplish this is with a batch macro.  

Would be infinitely more convenient to just have the Email Tool by default accept multiple attachments in a field as long as they are separated by a semi-colon, much like occurs in the "to" field.

The canvas has 3 options as demonstrated by exhibit A:

 

The user settings can change 2 of the 3 defaults as demonstrated in exhibit B. The layout default and connection settings progress can both be defaulted for all new workflows:

 

Thus, I would propose that a user setting be added to the annotation box so that I can set the default to hide.

 

Mic Drop

As each version of Alteryx is rolled out, it would be much easier for our users and admin team to validate the new version, if Alteryx allowed parallel installs of many different versions of the software.

 

So - our team is currently on 11.3 - if we could roll out 11.5 in parallel then we could very easily allow users to revert to 11.3 if there are issues, or else remove 11.3 after 2-3 weeks if no issues.

The same goes for versions which are in BETA.

 

This would be a huge help!

 

cc: @avinashbonu ; @Deeksha ; @revathi

I like the new cache option in 2018.3, but I would like a user setting added that would allow me to 1) write the cache files to a local drive and 2) have them persist when I re-open Alteryx. Currently, the files are written to the user defaulted temp space and don't persist when Alteryx is closed down. Thanks!

If we rename a field ‘X’ to ‘Y’  in the alteryx module, the renaming is not inherited by all the tools using that field in that module. The tools which are still using the old field name ‘X’ will fail until they are configured to use the new field name ‘Y’. Most of the tools I have worked will inherit the field renaming.
 
It would be very helpful if the renaming is propagated to all the tools in the module using that field name. 

As mention on this post here I would love the ability to change the map provider to any other map service (Mapbox, google, some other paid option). This could be achieved by adding a "Map Severs" option in the default configuration and where you put in the map server details.

I think it would be incredibly helpful for Alteryx to include a "Fuzzy Join" operator, similar to what is described in this article: http://www.decisivedata.net/blog/alteryx-fuzzy-join-workflow/

 

Virtually every client/project I work on, there is a nead to clean up data.  Most of the time, that involved standardizing to some existing list of data.  However, as we all know, data from differnet systems or being manually collected will not match perfectly in all cases.  This is most often when I tend to use the Fuzzy Match tool.

 

However, I have to use a lot of weird steps to effectively create a "Fuzzy Join", which is something I've done using database functions in the past.  I think it would be great if a new tool were created that would do the following:

• Accept two inputs, one for the "raw" data and another for the "list" of data to match to.
• Perform a fuzzy join based on similar functionality to the fuzzy match, convert data to metaphone keys and then run Jaro/Levenstein matches.  By default, return only the highest matching result.
• Expand the pre-process functionality to include words to exclude from the analysis (beyond just "and", "the" and "in").  
• Match on the whole string.  No need to try and do joins based on partial words within a string.

 

This seems like a very common thing (I've created a macro for this anyway) that could be made to be simpler for everyday use.

 

Thanks!

Current State:  When a macro contains nested macros the only method that reliably works to share them is via yxi (which I fondly refer to as my wixies). 

 

Future State:  Allow macros published to the gallery be their own tool palette so that when I or any user connects to the server the macros are there and just work, no import, no visible install just a single set of tools that work on that server. 

Side task - also get export to yxi 

 

 

I recently ran into an issue where I had to remove my company's gallery from my Designer's Save As menu.  Unfortunately, figuring out how to do this in the UI took far longer than I anticipated, and I actually blew it away using the registry.  Eventually I found that when going to Save As, you can either remove it from the "Connecting" splash screen or you can press the gear from the Save As dialog box and remove the gallery that way, neither of which are an intuitive way to manage gallery removal.  I would advocate for adding an entry to the Advanced Options menu along with data source collections for adding/removing/modifying gallery connections.  

 

 

As this list of connection, dependency, and gallery management entries continues to grow, it may also make sense to remove it from "Advanced Options" and create a more descriptive "Data" or "Connections" menu or sub-menu.  I think it would be helpful to see aliases, in-db connections, dependencies, assets, and gallery management all grouped together within the interface.

 

Please extend the Workflow Dependencies functionality to include dependencies of used macros in the worflow too. Currenctly macros are simply marked as dependencies by themselves, but the underlying dependencies (e.g. data sources) of these macros are not included.

 

We have a large ETL process developed with Alteryx that applies several layers of custom and complex macros and several data sources referenced using aliases. Currently the process is deployed locally (non-server) and executed ad-hoc, but will be moved to the server platform at some point. 

 

Recently I had to prep an employee for running the process. This requires creating aliases and associated connections and making sure that access to needed network locations is in place (storing macros, temp files, etc.). Hence I needed to identify all aliases and components/macros used. As everything is wrapped nicely by a single workflow, I hoped that the workflow dependencies functionality would cover dependencies in the macro nodes within, but unfortunately it didn't and I had to look through the dependencies of 10-15 macros.

I love the dynamic rename tool because quite often my headers are in the first row of data in a text file (or sometimes, Excel!).

 

However, whenever I open a workflow, I have to run the workflow first in order to make the rest of the workflow aware of the field names that I've mapped in the dynamic rename tool, and to clear out missing fields from downstream tools. When a workflow takes a while to run, this is a cumbersome step.

 

Alteryx Designer should be aware of the field names downstream from the dynamic rename tool, and make them available in the workflow for use downstream as soon as they are added (or when the workflow is initially opened without having been run first).

When bringing data together it is often needed to assign a source to the data.  Generally this happens when you union data and need to know things later about the data for context.  It would save time to generate a source field that is assigned based upon the input connections of the union tool.  Perhaps when unioning data you can assign a name to each input stream?

 

 

Hi, I have searched through the community, and I wasn't able to find a duplicate for this idea. If in fact there is, I apologize and please point me to that post. I think that it would be a good idea to have date options in the summarize tool that would allow for grouping at higher levels of the date. I often have a date field that is specific to the day (i.e. 2018-01-01), and I just want to group by the year or month. Currently in order to do this, I have to create a formula before the summarize tool that formats the date according to how I want to group it, and then I am able to group off that field in the summarize tool. It would be nice if in the summarize tool, I could select the date field, and then have the option to group it at year, month, week, etc. 

In other data programs like access or Toad you can put conditions on a join. You can choose if something is greater than, less than, left join, right join, etc.
But with Alteryx you are only allowed to join a perfect match. It would be really great if you could add that functionality into 9.0