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
I've seen the question in the community and have had the need to cascade fields in a record. On certain conditions, field 2 moves to field 1 and field 3 moves to field 2 etcetera. This can be a complicated process remembering if the moves were made and which field contents should be where.
One solution might be to define the cascade condition as an expression and then map the fields as FROM TO and allow for defaulting into a field (ie: Null()).
Another solution might be to reference the input data directly. You could get field values from the input stream before enhancements to data were made.
At the end of a process, Delta Flags (fields changed during the formula) could be created if input/output of selected variables were changed.
A stream of thoughts....
It was discovered that 'Select' transformation is not throwing warning messages for cases where data truncation is happening but relevant warning is being reflected from the 'Formula' transformation. I think it would be good if we can have a consistent logging of warnings/errors for all transformations (at least consistent across the ones based on same use cases - for e.g. when using Alteryx as an ETL tool, 'Select' and 'Formula' tool usage should be common place).
Without this in place, it becomes difficult to completely rely on Alteryx in terms of whether in a workflow which is moving/populating data from source to target truncation related errors/warnings would be highlighted in a consistent manner or not. This might lead to additional overhead of having some logic built in to capture such data issues which is again differing transformation by transformation - for e.g when data passes through 'Formula' tool there is no need for custom error/warning logging for truncation but when the same data passes through 'Select' transformation in the workflow it needs to be custom captured.
FILTER Tool must be enhanced to filter out data from Excel based on the color of the rows. Currently we are preparing a report which requires us to segregate data based on different colors.
There are multiple ways to achieve this outside Alteryx but if this feature is provided in Alteryx, then we need not invoke programs from elsewhere.
Attached is the screenshot of the data in Green, Purple and White.
Thanks!
Hi,
I recently had a project that involved clipping the spatial polygon from one record with the spatial polygon of a different dataset. Currently, the only way I know how to use Alteryx to do this is to use a Spatial Match tool to get both spatial objects in the same record line, which allows me to use the Spatial Process tool. In my case, I was trying to trim polygons to the US, so my second spatial object was a polygon for the entire US, which then got attached to every record of my data in order to do the Spatial Process.
My suggestion is simple, make the Spatial Process tool have an option that would allow for two Inputs. I bring my target data in on one stream, chose the process method I want, and use the second Input as my "clip" data. This would allow people to trip/clip their data without having to append the clip data to every single record in the target dataset.
Same concept applies for the Distance tool, currently have to have both spatial objects in one record. My suggestion is to allow the Distance tool to also allow two inputs, I understand there is the Find Nearest tool and that as two inputs, but I'm not always just wanting the nearest, or to have a cutoff distance. Sometimes, I just want to know the distance in my target data to the location in my secondary file, for every record..
In one of the recent releases, Alteryx enhanced the error message when there is an error within the Formula tool to display the error and the formula expression number.
Example:
Error: Formula (3): Parse Error at char(0): Unknown variable "TEST" (Expression #2)
My suggestion would be to label the different expressions within the formula tool with expression numbers. And/or code the expression name when there is an error message.
Hey Community,
How many times do you need to follow a Text to Columns tool with a data cleanse tool? For me it seems almost every time
Wouldn't it be great if Alteryx could incorporate some of the data cleanse functionality into the the Text to Columns?
If you agree VOTE NOW!
Part time Tableau, Part Time Alteryx. Full Time Awesome
If I need to change field text using an If Statement, I have to write in in a format similar to this:
IF [Product Line]=="" THEN "Others" ELSE [Product Line] ENDIF
Having an Else statement increases processing time and statement complexity and in this case is unnecessary. Please allow me to write my code in this manner:
IF [Product Line]=="" THEN "Others" ENDIF
I made a search on LDA - Linear Discriminant Analysis on Alteryx Help and it returned "0" Results.
Idea: LDA - Linear Discriminant Analysis tool
to be added on the predictive tool box.
Rationale: We have PCA and MDS as tools which help a lot on "unsupervised" dimentionality reduction in predictive modelling.
Bu if we need a method that takes target values into considerations we need a "supervised" tool instead...
"LDA is also closely related to principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis in that they both look for linear combinations of variables which best explain the data.[4] LDA explicitly attempts to model the difference between the classes of data. PCA on the other hand does not take into account any difference in class, and factor analysis builds the feature combinations based on differences rather than similarities. Discriminant analysis is also different from factor analysis in that it is not an interdependence technique: a distinction between independent variables and dependent variables (also called criterion variables) must be made."
After we change to a new type, the Forced option should be appear in the new type.
screenshot below is example, i change to V_string but the forced option is still in double.
it very annoying to change via 2 select tool or edit in xml
hello,
Recently I used the optimization tool and it's awesome. However, there is no option for sensitivity analysis and It would be great to see it in a future version. Thank you!
King regards,
There's a common need to perform the same function on many fields, where you want to bring in data from a secondary field which is defined by the current column name.
So - for example:
Input:
Output
So it would be useful to be able to have an indirect function where you can create a string which contains the field you want to use; and then indirect to it.
For example:
Hi there,
The select tool writes a different configuration to the underlying XML file for the Alteryx flow depending on whether the "Unknown" value is selected.
However - we are hoping to scan our Alteryx jobs to spot where fields are not used and should be trimmed out earlier - and because of this behaviour of select-type tools (Select; join; etc), we cannot get a full view of all the fields known by the tool.
Can we please give the user an option to write ALL fields to the XML file irrespective of the "Unknown" flag? This will give the added benefit of enabling every tool to know its fields on a fresh reload without having to rerun.
Example:
Desired State:
cc: @Ned
The number 1 issue I have with training Excel/SQL users on wonderful Alteryx is that "<>" isn't valid as an operator - I also struggled with this.
Why should users have to learn old ANSI SQL operators, <> seems unambiguous.
Apologies if this has been posted previously, but couldn't find it with the limited Search capability, but that's another post =)..
Hi All,
I think this suggestion would be be ideal for the Join tool and it's related cousins (Join Multiple etc.) and would improve the experience of data blending for all users.
I am going to rely on Qlik Sense for this explanation as this functionality is native to that product.
When we bring in two data sources and use the join tool to blend we are required to select the field or fields upon which we want to base our join.
In Qlik Sense we can see our two data sources:
We can then drag them together and it will form suggestions based on data association density:
This helps with identifying how tables should be joined, and at the very least shows commonalities between data streams, based on the data within the tables and not any naming conventions.
It would be nice to have the functionality to generate suggestions based on association density between two data streams, and then to apply the join from a selection.
Thoughts?
I often find myself combining data from different sources. It is external data I have no control of. One of the main problems I face is that columns are often named differently: 'this is a comment' in table1 is called 'a comment this is' in table 2 and 'comment' in table3.
The union tool is convenient for tables with few columns only: when the columns are many, moving them left and right is confusing and time-consuming.
I currently list and associate the column names in Excel, then use this as the basis to rename columns in Alteryx with a select tool, then do a union in Alteryx.
It would be extremely convenient and efficient if Alteryx had some kind of drop-down box to do this association. I have tehse steps in mind:
1) Alteryx tries to guess associations by column names (if two columns have the same name in two tables, they are associated to each other)
2) for the ones with no associations, rather than scrolling left and right as is now the case with the union tool, the suer would be able to choose from a drop-down list. This would make it evident that 'this is a comment' matches 'a comment this is', etc
"Unique" tool should offer an option to select "unknown" or "unique by rows"
When working with complex modules, it would be great to allow an option to add a tool upstream and automatically rewire to downstreams tools.
Simplified example:
Text Input flows to (1) Filter and (2) Formulae Tool. If I want to drag and drop a Formulae Icon after the text input to be applied to both paths, I can't. I have to either choose To apply to Path (1) or to Path (2).
I know that you can right click, press insert after, and search for the tool, but this is not a time efficient manner. You can also delete the wiring and rewire yourself, but if you have mutliple downstream tools, this is a pain.