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.
Who needs a 1073741823 sized string anyways? No one, or close enough to no one. But, if you are creating some fancy new properties in the formula tool and just cranking along and then you see that your **bleep** data stream is 9G for nine rows of data you find yourself wondering what the hell is going on. And then, you walk your way way down the workflow for a while finding slots where the default 1073741823 value got set, changing them to non-insane sized strings, and the your data flow is more like 64kb and your workflow runs in 3 seconds instead of 30 seconds.
Please set the default value for formula tools to a non-insane value that won't be changed by default by 99.99999% of use cases. Thank you.
When we create new workflows, we like to have them in our company template, to stnadardise documentation. This makes it easier for a supervisor to review, and for a colleague to pick up the workflow and understand what is going on. For instance, we have all data input on the left, and all error checks and workflow validation on the right, and a section at the top with the workflow name, project name, purpose etc. We have a workflow that we use as a template with containers, boxes and images all in the appropriate places
It would be great if there was an option to select a workflow as a template. When a new workflow is opened, it would load this template rather than having a blank canvas.
With the release of 2018.3, cache has become an adhoc task. With complex workflow and multiple inputs we need a method to cache and save the cache selection by tool. Once the workflow runs after opening, the cache would be saved at the latest tool downstream.
This way we don't have to create adhoc cache steps and run the workflow 2X before realizing the time saving features of cache.
This would work similar to the cache feature in 11.0 but with enhanced functionality...the best of the old cache with the new cache intent.
I would like to make some suggestions for future release. I am a big fan of the "retro" alteryx look and would like the option to select that look under User Settings. There should also be some other set themes for user to use. a "Light" version, "Dark" (for the true developer feel) and some grayscale standards or color blind adapted themes.
I have a number of reservations to the new look design (I can put those in a separate post if the team really wants to hear them) but please put the 'retro' button in user settings for me and I will be a happy analyst.
A minor, but time saving GUI enhancement would be appreciated. When adding a tool to the canvas, the current behavior is to make visible the tool anchor that was last used on prior tools. That being said, when I look at the results window, I might be adding a "vanilla" configuration tool to the canvas and stare at a BLANK results window. When users are adding tools to the canvas, I suggest that the best practice is to VIEW the incoming data before configuring the tool.
I ALWAYS set the results to view the INCOMING DATA ANCHOR.
I've got a situation wherein the user runs something in Gallery, and complains. I have to log in as that user to view the output files that came back out. As a super user, I should be able to have all seeing ability! Thanks!
While In-db tools are very helpful and cut down the time needed to write complex SQL , there are some steps that are faster by directly writing SQL like window functions- OVER (PARTITION BY .....). In Alteryx, we need to create multiple joins and summaries to perform a window function. It would be immensely helpful if there was a SQL editor tool for in-db workflows where we can edit the SQL code at any point in the workflow, or even better, if they can add an "edit" function to every in-db tool where we can customize the SQL code generated and then send to the next tool.
This will cut down the time immensely and streamline the workflow to make Alteryx a true contender for the ETL solution space.
The Source field of the field metadata is very useful, but has some problems.
It is repetitious. A long connection string repeated for many fields from the same source can bloat the size of the workflow above 10 MB, and when removed is around 0.5 MB.
It exposes sensitive information about a company's infrastructure, such as server names, ports, user ids, and proprietary data structures.
I first started paying attention when we found a user's password in the metadata because they had passed it as a string to the Dynamic Input Tool (separate Idea submitted for that - LINK). Then when I had to share an App with the Alteryx Support team for support with an issue, I thought to check the metadata, and I noticed that the file was too big and was exposing information that I would not normally share with another company.
I'm not sure how you want to handle this, but here's some thoughts:
Default the Source field to 'off' and provide users the option to turn it 'on' in the workflow/app settings.
Provide a mechanism to strip the 'Source' field at time of saving or exporting the workflow.
If nothing else, provide education to users on the implications of including this information in the file.
All the items in the 'View' menu have useful shortcuts. For instance, I'm always using Ctrl+Alt+D for the interface designer.
It would be nice to be able to quickly check workflow dependencies; at the moment there are far too many clicks to get there given the amount they are accessed (by myself and my colleagues at least...)
Quite often the window is only required briefly to check whether absolute/relative paths are used and to see inputs/outputs. It would really improve speed and ease of use if the window could be brought up with a couple of key strokes.
The admin needs to be given more control. The admin (curator) should have equal to and great control than the users of the system.
My organization is in the Healthcare industry and we have HIPAA laws to abide by when it comes to data. Not all users should be able to see all data. Developers should not have complete control over the data they publish.
Private studio -- admin should be able to control if user can publish to public gallery (compliant issues occur when users can all see and run workflows)
admin should be able to create collections so they can manage the collections and what users have access to
admin should be able to control if users can create new collections (again, compliance issues)
admin should be able to add workflows to collections (so users don't need to manage collections, admin can add the workflows for them)
admin should be able to give and remove download of workflow rights
Get tips from Tableau as they have admin controls down with their permissions process.
I have a process that joins 3 data sets to identify a specific group of data and apply certain ruling. From this created file, I need to extract the data (not the headings) from specific columns and insert into an already existing template. The template has formatting that needs to remain in order for it to function.
Alteryx has different behaviours for conversion errors depending on the type of conversion desired. When converting from string to date data type, a conversion error will generate a NULL value. When converting from a string to a numeric data type, a conversion error will generate 0. Why the different behaviours? There is a lack of harmony here. 0 is a valid value and should not be the generated value for a failed string to numeric conversion. It should be NULL.
When I perform data type conversions, i do not apply them directly to the source field and then cast it. If there is a conversion error, then I have lost or corrupted the source information. Rather, I create a target field with the desired data type and use a formula to apply a conversion, such as datetimeparse or tonumber. Finally, I do a comparison of the source and target values. If the datetimeparse generated a NULL then I can PROGRAMMATICALLY address it in the workflow by flagging or doing some other logic. This isn't so easy to do with numerics because of the generated 0 value. If I compare a string "arbitrary" to the generated 0 value as a string then clearly these do not match. However, if I compare a scientific value in a string to the converted numeric as a string, then these do not match though they should. My test of the conversion shows a false positive.
I want a unified and harmonised conversion behaviour. If the conversion fails, generate a NULL across the board please. If I am missing something here and people actually like conversion errors to generate 0 please let me know.
Designer should support statistical testing tools that ignore data distribution and support Statistical Learning methods.
Alteryx already supports resampling for predictive modeling with Cross-Validation.
Resampling tools for bootstrap and permutation tests (supporting with or without replacement) should be tools for analysts and data scientists alike that assess random variability in a statistic without needing to worry about the restrictions of the data's distribution, as is the case with many parametric tests, most commonly supported by the t-test Tool in Alteryx. With modern computing power the need for hundred-year-old statistical sampling testing is fading: the power to sample a data set thousands of times to compare results to random chance is much easier today.
The tool's results could include, like R, outputs of not only the results histogram but the associated Q-Q plot that visualizes the distribution of the data for the analyst. This would duplicate the Distribution Analysis tool somewhat, but the Q-Q plot is, to me, a major missing element in the simplest visualization of data. This tool could be very valuable in terms of feeding the A/B Test tools.
Hi, i am from ETL back ground and coming from my knowledge i would like to suggest or ask a feature which will helpful in alteryx solution.
"Error Line" : many ETL tools provide an "On Error" line which performs certain actions like "altering user by sending an email", "ignoring and going to next step" etc. It will be great if Alteryx can provide the same feature where we can have an error line (red line) for each tool.
Hope this is not a repeated idea. thank you for all the support and providing a wonderful tool.
When building and debugging batch macros - it is important to be able to add test values and use these for debugging. However, the input values in the interface tools section do not allow input, and the ability to save or load test values also does not work.
While there is a workaround - setting the values in the workflow variables - this does not work fully (it doesn't reflect in the interface view; and is incorrect in the debug report) and is inconsistent with all other macro types.
Please could you make this consistent with other ways of testing & debugging macros?
All screenshots and examples attached
Screenshot 1: not possible to capture test values
Screenshot 2: saving and loading test values does not work
Screenshot 3: Workaround by using workflow variables
Screenshot 4: Values entered do not reflect properly
Current In-DB connections to SAP HANA via ODBC don't extract the Field Descriptions in addition to the technical field names. This forces users to manually rename each field within the workflow or create a secondary, In-DB connection to HANA _SYS_BI tables and dynamically rename. This second option only works if the Descriptions are maintained in the BI tables (which is not always the case).
I have posted the work-around solution on the community but a standard fix would be welcome. DVW and Tableau both offer solutions that seamlessly handle this issue.
A multifilter tool would match excel capabilities and make users more comfortable making leap to Alteryx from excel/.
I pull alot of excel and text files through Alteryx; the files always have empty rows that make viewing the files through Alteryx unwieldy. It is easy to filter one at a time but that is laborious,. I put a post out to the community and others encountered same issue. There was a macro built to bring this capability to Alteryx; it really should be a native feature. I would rather not have to use a macro
Users in excel do sumifs, countifs where multiple fields are pulled into the formula. The current filter tool in Alteryx only considers one column. To match excel, the ability to bring multiple columns into the filter tool at once would match this capability.