Be sure to review our Idea Submission Guidelines for more information!
Submission GuidelinesHello,
After used the new "Image Recognition Tool" a few days, I think you could improve it :
> by adding the dimensional constraints in front of each of the pre-trained models,
> by adding a true tool to divide the training data correctly (in order to have an equivalent number of images for each of the labels)
> at least, allow the tool to use black & white images (I wanted to test it on the MNIST, but the tool tells me that it necessarily needs RGB images) ?
Question : do you in the future allow the user to choose between CPU or GPU usage ?
In any case, thank you again for this new tool, it is certainly perfectible, but very simple to use, and I sincerely think that it will allow a greater number of people to understand the many use cases made possible thanks to image recognition.
Thank you again
Kévin VANCAPPEL (France ;-))
Thank you again.
Kévin VANCAPPEL
Hello,
A few years ago, Alteryx was 4 released per year and now it's only 2 per year (in 2023, as of today, only one !!)
The reasons why I would the cadence to be back to quarter release :
-a quarter cadence means waiting less time to profit of the Alteryx new features so more value
-quarter cadence is now an industry standard on data software.
-for partners, the new situation means less customer upgrade opportunities, so less cash but also less contacts with customers.
Best regards,
Simon
The default variable size is a V_WSTRING of size 1073741823. If no one catches this, it uses up the memory on the server. Could the default be smaller?
This is a hybrid idea related to both posts regarding dynamic tool configuration during runtime / without having to run an analytic app.
What I would like to propose is a new optional connection type for the interface tools that can be updated with incoming connections (having a Q letter with white background), namely Drop Down, List Box, Tree and Map tools. This could be a simple R letter in a square for example, which would be located to the left of the incoming question anchor.
Use Case
Imagine an app where there are two control containers and three interface tools (Action tools excluded from the count) outside those containers, one of them is a Text Box connected to a filter tool (via an Action tool) in the first control container with the purpose of limiting the dataset by specifying a city for example, another one is a Numeric Up Down for limiting the dataset by the average transaction amounts that are greater than the specified amount. These two interface tools are contained in a Group Box in the Interface Designer.
The third interface tool is a Drop Down tool which obtains the values (which will be Store Name for this example) from the results of the Select tool (in the second control container that is connected to the output anchor of the first control container) that is connected to an incoming filter tool which is modified by the previously mentioned interface tools. Output anchor of this Select tool is connected to the hypothetical R anchor on the top of the Drop Down tool, which is then connected to an outgoing filter tool that is connected to a series of tools which ends with a Browse tool that displays basic KPI information for the store specified from the Drop Down tool.
The main difference of the R (Refresh) anchor from the Q anchor is that it will enable the user to dynamically update the incoming values (i.e., choices for a drop down tool) without having to run the workflow. Alteryx Designer will automatically execute only the tools necessary to be able to update the values (up to a certain point of the workflow only, which may also be indicated by the boundaries of the control containers containing the target tool) for the R anchor connected applicable Interface tools specified above. This will be possible by clicking the hypothetical confirm button (same appearance with the Apply Data Manipulations button) which only appears next to the Interface tools (or the Group Boxes containing them instead) that are automatically determined by Alteryx Designer to be providing downstream data to the the tools (T anchor of the Filter tool for example) sending values to the applicable Interface tools having an incoming R anchor connection.
I saw that a similar feature recently became available with Alteryx Analytics Cloud Platform with the App Builder product, and I think that Alteryx Designer Desktop could definitely benefit both from this feature and additional App Builder features (that can be adapted to Desktop counterpart) in the upcoming releases.
I usually use the comment tool by:
- dragging it on to the canvas and then
- Repositioning and expanding it to cover the tools I'd like to comment on.
What if I could select the tools I wanted to comment on and then use a key combination or double click so that the comment tool surrounds these tools for me.
Note: Additional enhancement would be to anchor the comment to the tools selected but I see that this was dropped for consideration: https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Desktop-Ideas/Anchoring-comment-boxes-to-tools/idi...
Request: Google Drive Output Tool to be able to set the maximum records per file and create multiple files
For the regular Alteryx Output Tool, we're able to set maximum records per file. This is helpful in a variety of ways - we use it as part of a workflow where the output gets uploaded into SalesForce and we can only load 5,000 records at a time. I also use this to split up large csv files to be under Excel's ~1M line limit so my teammates without Alteryx can open their reports and not lose data.
The Google Drive Output does not have this ability to split based on the number of records. If I use the RecordID Tool plus a Filter, it crashes Alteryx due to a Bug with RecordID + GDrive Output (it's currently in Accepted Defect stage)
It would be very helpful to have this same functionality that we can with the regular Output Tool
It would be very helpful to have a find and replace work in duplicated formula. especially if it is long.
The Find Replace tool has a checkbox to do a case insensitive find. It would be fabulous if the Join and Join Multiple tools had a similar checkbox.
I frequently have to create a new field in each data stream, convert the data I want to join on to upper case, perform the join and remove the extra "helper" fields. Using the helper field is needed in my case in order to preserve unique capitalization (i.e., acronyms within the string, etc.).
Is it possible to add a search feature to the Summarize Tool that is similar to the search feature in the Select Tool? Selecting specific fields to summarize in small datasets is fine, but if I am dealing with a table that has 200 fields searching for a specific field can be cumbersome. Type in a few key letters to filter the available fields would be helpful.
Having the ability to specify columns to be "coalesced" (essentially filled in automatically when records aren't present) across all inputs of the Join Multiple tool would be very useful, and save lots of tedious setup. In fact, I avoid that tool if possible, currently, because of the extra steps necessary in maintaining key column integrity after the join.
In the screenshot below "RecordID" is present in all 4 inputs. When they are joined together, however, not every record is present in all inputs, therefore each of the 4 "RecordID" columns has nulls. We then have to go through an extra step to find the first "non-null" record ID, and put that in a new column (or in the first "RecordID" column).
This could be simply fixed by adding a menu to specify columns that should be coalesced, or auto-filled from other inputs if it's missing in the first one.
The columns in the menu could be based on the first input, and then alteryx would look for columns with the same name in all other inputs and complete the logic below, for instance:
If isnull([RecordID]) then
if isnull([Input_#2_RecordID]) then
if isnull([Input_#3_RecordID]) then
[Input_#4_RecordID]
else [Input_#3_RecordID] endif
else [Input_#2_RecordID] endif
else [RecordID] endif
Hi!
Just thought up a simple improvement to the US Geocoder macro that could potentially speed up the results. I'm doing an analysis on some technician data where they visit the same locations over & over again. I'm doing a full year analysis (200k + records) & the geocoder takes a bit to churn thru that much data. In the case of my data though, it's the same addresses over & over again & the geocoder will go thru each one individually.
What I did in my process & could be added to the macro is to put a unique tool into the process based off address, city, state, zip, then Geocode the reduced list, then simply join back to the original data stream using a join based off the address, city, state, zip fields (or use record id tool to created a unique process id to join off).
In my case, the 200k records were reduced to 25k, which Alteryx completed in under a minute, then joined back so my output was still the 200k records (all geocoded now).
Not everyone will have this many duplicates, but I'd bet most data has a few, & every little bit of time savings helps when management is waiting on the results haha!
Hi,
I was thinking that this might be nice addition - while Joining two inputs at the bottom there is always possibility to check if we want to include Unknown columns. Maybe we could specify if we want to join Unknown columns only from Right Input or Unknown only from Left Input. I know I would use this in my workflows.
Thanks
Alicja
It would be very helpful to have an output of the workflow into a step by step document. so someone who does not have access to Alteryx can undestand the steps taken to create the flow hence the result or output.
Wouldn't it be great to be able to pick results from a drop down, based on the up-stream tools in the workflow? I had this situation many times, where I had to create a complex, chained app, just because the tools connected to the interface can't run before the interface tools are displayed to the end user.
For example, imagine an app, that based on what column it sees, it lets you drop one by just picking it from a drop down. It would open many development opportunities, and decrease the number of chained apps we need to build.
Right now, the List Box interface tool allows end users to select multiple options of fields for selections, filtering, and formatting/formulating.
However, it doesn't do quite as good when a use case has over 1,000+ columns/fields. This is made even more complicated with each column/field having somewhat similar naming conventions thereby causing confusion.
Having a search function, as made available in standard Select Tools, Join tools, and other tools that has filtering capacity, will be most helpful for developers to give maximum flexibility to end users.
It will very good to connect multiple 2 or more tools by rightclicking and join. similar to cut and connect around.
I think double clicking. a tool will automatically take it to canvas is a good idea and hence a shortcut with it will be nice to have.
I think we can all agree that Workflow Summary Tool is immensely powerful in summarizing large and/or complicated workflows. However, some companies have begun to bar the use of certain GenAI applications, like ChatGPT. Unfortunately this makes the use of the Workflow Summary Tool impossible. At the same time those companies are allowing the use of other forms of GenAI, like AzureAI.
In the Workflow Summary tool, it would be nice to have the capability to select which GenAI engine you want to use (ChatGPT, AzureAI, etc) so that you don't break corporate policy by using barred applications. This could simply be a dropdown in the GUI configuration for the Workflow Summary Tool with a list of the most common engines. The user would then supply their API key for that engine, and you're off to the races.
Hi
The action of the 'tab' key in configuration window recently appears to have changed from indenting to a navigation function.
The user should be able to select which action the tab key performs.
Alternatively, tab should indent and shift-tab (or alternative) navigate. I'm not the only one who would appreciate the choice.
PuffinPanic
Have you ever had the business deliver an Excel (EEK!) file to be passed into Alteryx with a different number of header rows (because it looks pretty and is convenient)? Never, you say? Lies!
I would suggest adding an option to the Input Data Tool that would give us the ability concatenate multiple header rows. This would help enable accurate data profiling for columns when output and eliminate loss from unnecessary conversion errors. Currently, the options allow us to Start Data Input on Line X; however, if the header for the column is on multiple rows, they would have to be manually entered after input due to only being able to select the lowest possible row to assure the data is accurately passed. The solution would be to be able to specify the number of rows that contain headers, concatenate them to a single row (ignoring null and carriage return) and then output that as the header.
The current functionality, in a situation where each row has a variable number of header rows, causes forced errors such as a scientific string conversion of a numeric value.
In our environment, we often have to replace a table. It would be nice if there was a tool that could pull out all of the input or output tools that referenced a given dataset. Someone wrote a XML file that we parsed, but it doesn't seem like all workflows are included.