Alteryx Designer Discussions

Find answers, ask questions, and share expertise about Alteryx Designer and Intelligence Suite.

AMP Engine and Macros

_richardr
10 - Fireball

Is there a way to set a Macro to not use the AMP engine if it is used in an AMP enabled workflow?

 

I have a tool I created that many users use but I cannot control if they enable the AMP engine.  The tool is very dependent on proper sorting and if used with AMP produces broken results.

12 REPLIES 12
JeradR
Alteryx
Alteryx

Hi @_richardr,

 

We do not have a feature to specify which engine macros run with. They will use the engine selected for the main workflow, as you're aware of.

 

You could add a Label field to the top of the Questions tab of the configuration page to help prevent improper usage.

 

JeradR_0-1592242840384.png

 

JeradR_1-1592242912347.png

 

Regards,

 

Jerad

TonyaS
Alteryx
Alteryx

@_richardr 

I wanted to let you know that it is on our Roadmap to add the capability to run a macro using AMP Engine while the macro is being developed. That will be limited to only running the macro and the setting at the Workflow level will still determine which Engine is used to run any workflows containing the macro. 

 

Tonya Smith
Sr. Technical Product Manager, Alteryx Engines
DavidLane
8 - Asteroid

@_richardr - Can you give a little more detail regarding the issues you are seeing with the AMP engine and macros? I am experiencing very odd results from one of my iterative macros that runs just fine with the old engine and I am struggling to pin down exactly what is going on, but if I understand your post the AMP engine may be messing up the sorting order of records or otherwise supplying the input data to the macro in unordered chunks?

 

Thanks. David

TonyaS
Alteryx
Alteryx

@DavidLane 

Thank you for the early feedback on the new AMP Engine. 

 

I encourage you to continue to report any specific use case issues that you find with running workflows with AMP Engine enabled.

 

There definitely can be record order differences between the original Engine and AMP Engine due to the multi-threading. You can find information about some of the known differences here: https://help.alteryx.com/current/designer/alteryx-engine-and-amp-main-differences

Tonya Smith
Sr. Technical Product Manager, Alteryx Engines
d13g0_86
7 - Meteor

US: 

I have the same problem, I had a problem with many flows that use AMP ENGINE, which is to be expected because in a new resource, so I had all the work of creating macros in the parts of the flow that work well with AMP ENGINE and recording with this function, but when I run the flow with AMP ENGINE OFF, but with MARCROS with AMP ENGINE ON, the flow does not gain performance !!!

 

PT: 

 

tenho o mesmo problema, tive problema com muitos fluxos que usam AMP ENGINE , o que é de se esperar pois em um recurso novo, então tive todo o trabalho de cirar macros nas partes do fluxo que funcionam bem com o AMP ENGINE e gravar com esta função, mas quando rodo o fluxo com AMP ENGINE OFF , mas com MARCROS com AMP ENGINE ON , o fluxo não ganha desempenho !!!

d13g0_86
7 - Meteor

p

BGirkins
7 - Meteor

Can confirm there are still issues with AMP engine and macros. Both batch and iterative. Bit frustrating given the issues with Python-based connectors like Salesforce Input which throws the "You found a bug" error. Unfortunately I cannot update these workflows to AMP (the work around for the previously mentioned bug) because of the macro issue with AMP.

Hoping there is a fix. Deprecated Salesforce tool and original engine still outperforming all this new stuff released over the years. Pretty wild...

TonyaS
Alteryx
Alteryx

Hello all, 

Thanks @BGirkins for the update - are you saying you are using a deprecated Salesforce tool and receiving the uncaught exception "You have found a bug..." error? Also curious what Release version you are using?

If you are able to package up a workflow that I could use to reproduce this and send it to me I would appreciate that. 

 

I also want to mention that with Release version 2021.4 there is a new feature with AMP: "Engine Compatibility Mode" which will maintain the same record order as the original Engine when selected. 

We also have an ongoing AMP Beta leading up to the 2022.2 Release which will have AMP enabled R and Reporting tools, in case anyone here is interested in joining that. Let me know and I can invite you. 

 

 

Tonya Smith
Sr. Technical Product Manager, Alteryx Engines
BGirkins
7 - Meteor

No problem!

 

No, I am saying that the workflows we have yet to get around updating from a deprecated tool work MUCH better than the newer Python-based tools. Specifically, the version that used to come packaged with Designer (image attached). They don't cause cache issues, they don't cause Python issues, and they don't get caught up "thinking" as you build a workflow (spinning circle with 'Not responding'). That last one can be a real time sink (v3.1 is specifically awful). I have not noticed it as bad with v4.0 or v4.1 until the 'You found a bug' error pops up. Then that freezes Alteryx for 30 seconds as a time everytime you click into/out of a connector.

 

Simply put, even if download speed is faster (which I have not tested), the deprecated tools lead to faster workflow builds. Unfortunately I would not be allowed to package up a workflow to send given it would require embedded SFDC credentials but hopefully the image helps.

 

We are on the newest version of Alteryx Designer and have the most recent Salesforce Input version (v4.1.0). The two newest versions are the ones generating the "you have found a bug.." error. Alteryx Support said the issue is with Python and the original engine (something about if the Tool ID for the connector is larger than any downstream Tool ID) but because the issue is not there with AMP engine, there will be no fix implemented. Instead it was suggested to move everything to AMP. So we did that and now our workflows that lean on macros have an issue which is related to AMP. Go figure.

 

I will give the "compatibility mode" setting a try. I believe I tried that and I still got errors. Specifically with JOINs that come after a batch macro:

 

00:10:11.219 - Error - ToolId 29: Internal Error - Anchor (29:Join) was not closed
00:10:11.219 - Error - ToolId 29: Internal Error - Anchor (29:Left) was not closed
00:10:11.219 - Error - ToolId 29: Internal Error - Anchor (29:Right) was not closed
00:10:11.219 - Error - ToolId 79: Internal Error - Anchor (79:Join) was not closed
00:10:11.219 - Error - ToolId 79: Internal Error - Anchor (79:Left) was not closed
00:10:11.219 - Error - ToolId 79: Internal Error - Anchor (79:Right) was not closed

00:10:11.219 - Error - ToolId 146: Internal Error - Anchor (146:Output13) was not

 

Even if I insert Block Until Done tools before the left and right JOIN inputs, the macro output error still persists. A Block Until Done tool does not solve that one. I've submitted the info to Alteryx Support in hopes of a work around.

Labels