This site uses different types of cookies, including analytics and functional cookies (its own and from other sites). To change your cookie settings or find out more, click here. If you continue browsing our website, you accept these cookies.
The highly anticipated Alteryx Community tradition is back! We hope you'll join us!
I'd like to see a tool that can take an input, then send it in different directions (similar to formula tool), but with many options... based on filters and/or formulas and/or fields.
Sometimes I need to perform actions on parts of my data or perform different actions depending on whether the data matches certain criteria and then re-union it later.
Right now, the filter tool only allows true or false. If we could customize further we could optimize our workflows rather than stringing filter tools together as if they are nested if/then.
So either the filter tool could have more options than true/false, and infinite ouputs, or the join multiple tool could be flipped, as shown below.
I envision something that says:
You can use the Dynamic Select tool with the formula and select based on a field name group or criteria. I use this on occasion and then rejoin if necessary. It will still require you to create one select tool per grouping but it does eliminate the need to update manually if your naming conventions remain consistent.
Cool idea, but I think the tricky part here is that... well, for example with the MultiJoin tool, it's easy to accept any number of inputs with just one output, because downstream you won't have to decide which output you're looking at. Even for various tools that already have two or three outputs, those outputs are well defined regardless of the use case.
I'm not sure how they would support an undefined number of outputs based on user configuration. How would the downstream tool know which output it's getting? I'm sure there's a way to do it, but I'm not sure there's a way that's significantly easier than a bunch of Filter Tools, (e.g. Michael's response in the question thread). For something significantly complex (requiring lots of separate logical branches with fairly similar processing), it may be better to look at iterative macro that processes each sub-group independently, rather than numerous Filters.
I'll check it out @AndrewDataKim!
@JohnJPSI probably didn't use the best example in my picture. A better example would be reversing the union tool. A data set would come into the tool and instead of having chains of T/F filters, you could say if X then output 1, elseif Y then output 2, elseif Z then output 3. From there on your workflow handles it exactly as it would a filter tool where one flow goes left and one goes right, except that the outputs would be numbered (or better yet, designated a label in the tool), just like the inputs into the union tool are now. Your outgoing connections could be 1, 2, 3 or X, Y, Z and then you do whatever you want with the data from there on.
For my use cases, I would typically want to union the data back to itself farther on downstream.
@cbridges thanks for clarifying. Good idea!
I'd also be interested in a similar functionality for work that I'm doing
Much needed tool I reckon. Trying to do something similar and initiated a discussion.
Got around my issue using a batch macro but again that wasn't generic as the proposed tool would be.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.