Inspire EMEA 2022 On-Demand is live! Watch now, and be sure to save the date for Inspire 2023 in Las Vegas next May.

Alteryx Designer Ideas

Share your Designer product ideas - we're listening!
Submitting an Idea?

Be sure to review our Idea Submission Guidelines for more information!

Submission Guidelines

Featured Ideas

In the tools that embed the "Rename" option (Select, Append Fields, Join, Join Multiple), copying the new name will copy all the information of the field configuration : tick/untick, original field name, type, size, new name and description.


Renaming the field "Rename_Field"Renaming the field "Rename_Field"





In my opinion, it should copy only the new name. This would be useful, especially because when you change the name of a field, it isn't automatically changed in subsequent tools, so copying it to replace it in those tools is faster than retyping it every time.

Similar to this idea, I think it would be really helpful to be able to search for fields in the dropdowns when using the Sort tool. Having to scroll through all of the possible field names can be a chore if you have 50+




Two very useful functions

According to

The LEAST() function returns the smallest value of the list of arguments.

example : SELECT LEAST("", "", "");

returns ""


GREATEST works exactly the same but returns the greatest value of the list of argument


As of today, Alteryx proposes max and min to deal with that, but it only works with number and , I think, it's an ambiguous syntax : Max and Min works both as an aggregation function and as a row function. I love to separate these two notions.


Having a more standard means also more interoperability.


On a related topic, the coalesce function is proposed here :



Best regards,



Hello all,

I suggest a new string function Repeat()


Repeat() forms a string consisting of the input string repeated the number of times defined by the second argument.

Repeat(text[, repeat_count])


Repeat('to',3) gives tototo

It's also a standard SQL function

Best regards,


Highlighted in this post: Solved: DateDiff question - Alteryx Community The DateDiff function under certain conditions does not work as you would expect and I suspect most people would not notice the inaccuracy.


Here is the formula for the Results Column below:





Date Expected Result
2022-11-15 0 0
2022-10-31 1 0
2022-09-30 2 2
2022-08-31 3 2






Currently when using the formula tool, you can create a string using the two following methods:


With speech marks, or an apostrophe being used respectively.


I would expect both of these methods to behave the exact same way, however what is interesting is that if you type within the apostrophes anything that would prompt a formula, this is still prompted:


This is not the case within the speech marks:


This can cause mistakes with autocompletion when typing within the field. I propose a small QoL change that the formula tool will recognise a string is being written when within two apostrophes. I believe the logic is already built for that, given that it behaves in every other way the same, and highlights green too. 




Tools should not error with Zero rows, often when working with macros it is possible to have a scenario where zero rows or columns is legitimate. Some tools are fine with this and some are not. In my case the Select Tool does not allow it so I have to create a Work around with a Text Input tool.



I find the myself often needing to create unique IDs for a given category. Currently I end up using the multi row tool and leveraging the "group by" option. Enabling the record ID tool to create a unique count by grouping on distinct categories in an underlying data set would unlock an new level of grouping that would consolidate record keeping functionality in a single tool.

Data Cleansing Tool:   There should be a sub-category on the "Punctuation" cleansing.  Ideally to have an option to "Include Only" or conversely "Exclude these characters" which would allow you for example to remove all characters except   "." from a dollar formatted field .  There are times when you need to clean almost everything except a certain punctuation or not. 

*Simply a QoL suggestion & apologies in advance if this isn't possible within the constraints of Alteryx*


As it stands right now, if statements require an 'else' condition 100% of the time.





However, there are many times where users just need to flag a certain condition and don't care about what the other outcome is, often just needing this to filter or sense check etc. Therefore the idea is simple: allow users to immediately ENDIF a statement after a single if condition, much like we can do in Tableau. When a statement is written in this way, the missing 'else' just defaults to nulling the value if the single condition isn't met:




Sorry if this has been previously suggested but haven't spotted anything from a look around the ideas area.





Enhancement of 'IN' functionality (ie. in Filter tool), so using range instead of citing particular values for example:
instead [ID] IN (1,2,3,52,53,54,100,101,102) something like that [ID] IN (1-3,52-54,100-102).


I am just making a quick suggestion, specifically for the Formula tool within Alteryx.


Often when I am working on a larger workflow - I will end up optimising the workflow towards the end. I typically end up removing unnecessary tools, fields, and rethinking my logic.


Much of this optimisation, is also merging formula tools where possible. For instance, if I have 3 formulas - its much cleaner (and I would suspect faster) to have these all within one tool. For instance, a scaled down example:



to this:



This requires a lot of copy and paste - especially if the formulas/column names are long - this can be two copy and pastes, and waiting for tools to load between them, per formula (i do appreciate, this sounds an incredibly small problem to have, but on what I would consider a large workflow, a tool loading can actually take a couple of seconds - and this could burn some time. Additionally, there's always potential problems when it comes to copy/pasting or retyping with errors).


My proposed solution to this, is the ability to drag a formula onto another - very similar to dragging a tool onto a connection. This integration would look like:



Drag to the first formula:









Formula has been appended to the formula tool:




I think this will help people visually optimise their workflows!




The Formula Tool does a good job of autocompleting expressions (for example an open square bracket will show you variables in your dataset), as well as syntax highlighting (coloring variables, keywords, strings, etc).







I propose having this feature available in all tools that use the expression editor, particularly common ones such as the Multi-Row Formula Tool and the Multi-Field Formula Tool.


This parity across tools would provide a more consistent experience for the user and increase one's productivity using these tools. It's incredibly helpful for beginners and seasoned Alteryx users alike and should be available wherever possible.

A quite minor, pedantic issue from me today. 


Currently, the Oversample Field Tool's naming and configuration suggest that the tool can over sample data:


However, I would argue the tool under samples data instead.

Here are a few sources that explain this much better than I can:

And an image is taken from Medium:


Effectively either step is to create a similar (or same) number of records between each class. Under sampling is the process of taking samples from the majority class, and ending up with a smaller dataset than started with. Over sampling is the process of duplicating records within the minority class, and creates a larger dataset.


When using the Oversample tool within Alteryx, using the example workflow for reference:


When summarizing the input:


And the output:


It's clear that the data has actually been under sampled, in that random samples have been taken from the majority class to match the minority, rather than creating duplicate minority records. 

I would suggest a quick renaming of the tool to "Undersample Field Tool", and documentation to not cause confusion to new users of the platform.


Kind Regards,


A very useful and common function

Return the first non-null value in a list:

returns ''

It exits in SQL, Qlik Sense, etc...

Best regards,


Trying to solve some use cases, I realized that I had to simulate the factorial behaviour.

Having a factorial formula can make this process easier.


I surprisingly couldn't find this anywhere else as I know it's been discussed in person on many occasions.


Basically the Formula tool needs to be smarter in many ways, but this particular post focuses on the Data Type component.


The formula tool, should not always default to V_String as the data type when entering data or a formula into the formula tool, it should look at the data type and estimate the most likely option.


I know there are times where the logical type might not be consistent in all fields, but the Data Preview and the Function of the formula should be used to determine the most likely option.


E.G. If I type a number or a date directly into the formula tool, then Alteryx should be smart enough to change the data type from the standard V_String to Int, Double or date.


This is an extension to the ideas posted here:

This is a pretty quick suggestion:


I think that there are a lot of formulas that would be easier to write and maintain if a SQL-style BETWEEN operator was available.


Essentially, you could turn this:

ToNumber([Postal Code]) > 1000 AND ToNumber([Postal Code]) < 2500


Into this:

ToNumber([Postal Code]) BETWEEN 1000 AND 2500

That way, if you later had to modify the ToNumber([Postal Code]), you only have to maintain it once.  Its both aesthetically pleasing and more maintainable!

  • Category Preparation

Now : when you double click on the part of a field name text field (Formula, Filter, etc.) it selects only the word you double clicked.


Idea : It would be easier if a double click would select the entire field name with brackets for copy-pasting as an example.

I often need to create a record ID that automatically increments but grouped by a specific field. I currently do it using the Multi-Row Formula tool doing [Field-1:ID]+1 because there is no group by option in the Record ID tool.


Also, sometimes I need to start at 0 but the Multi-Row Formula tool doesn't allow this so I have to use a Formula tool right after to subtract 1.


So adding a group by option to the Record ID tool would allow the user not to use the multi-row formula to do this and to start at any value wanted.

Top Liked Authors