community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Alteryx Designer Ideas

Share your Designer product ideas - we're listening!

1 Review

Our submission guidelines & status definitions before getting started

2 Search

The community for a solution or existing idea before posting

3 Vote

By clicking the star in the top left corner of an idea you support

4 Submit

A new idea to suggest a product enhancement or new feature


Suggest an idea

Hi, I have searched through the community, and I wasn't able to find a duplicate for this idea. If in fact there is, I apologize and please point me to that post. I think that it would be a good idea to have date options in the summarize tool that would allow for grouping at higher levels of the date. I often have a date field that is specific to the day (i.e. 2018-01-01), and I just want to group by the year or month. Currently in order to do this, I have to create a formula before the summarize tool that formats the date according to how I want to group it, and then I am able to group off that field in the summarize tool. It would be nice if in the summarize tool, I could select the date field, and then have the option to group it at year, month, week, etc. 

  • Category Transform

Hello Alteryx Devs - 

 

When I got to write some scripting in the formula tool, my data stream properties should be the first to be suggested once a user starts typing a letter, not the last. 

 

uppercase(Ad -> gives me:

 

DateTimeAdd

FileAddPaths

PadLeft

PadRight

ReadRegistryString

[Address]

 

I think we would need a dedicated R macro to ascertain the chances anyone in is going to need [ReadRegistryString] before they need a column of their own data that starts with [Ad...]

 

Easy fix.  Makes a big difference.  

 

Thanks.

These tools seem to be volatile, as in if you click on them before you run the workflow they lose their configuration. This is infuriating. Can we change this to be like every other tool where you can copy, paste or click into it at any time and it remembers its config.

 

Nick

I would love to see a "Product" option added to the summarize tool. I can currently count, sum, mean etc., but I can't multiply my data while grouping. There are numerous "work arounds", but a native product function built into the summarize tool would be great.

 

Thanks for listening!

Hi,

This feature isn't a must - but would definitely be a nice to have.

Similar to the excel having a tab with key figures like average, count and sum 

It would be a really good idea to do something similar within Alteryx just to have a quick glance on key figures/functions (example attached - apologise for the bad paint job but definitely would look good with Alteryx colour scheme)


Thanks


Access to only MD5 hashes via MD5_ASCII(String) and MD5_UNICODE(String) found under string functions is limiting.  Is there a way to access other hashing algorithms, ideally via the crypto algorithms from OpenSSL or the .NET framework? 

 

  - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.security.cryptography.hashalgorithm(v=vs.110).aspx
  - https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/Command_Line_Utilities#Signing_.2F_Digest 

 

Hashing functions are a very useful tool to have. There are many different types of hashes and each one has tradeoffs for different uses. This can range from error checking, privacy shielding, password protection, forensic analysis, message authentication (HMAC) and much more. See: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/800685/which-cryptographic-hash-function-should-i-choose 

 

- For workflows with data containing existing hashes, being able to consistently create hashes from non-hashed data for comparison is useful.
- Hashes are also useful because they are the same outside the Alteryx environment. They can be used to confirm correct operation of a production system or a third party's external process.

 

Access to only MD5 hashes via MD5_ASCII(String) and MD5_UNICODE(String) found under string functions in the formula tool is a start, but quite limiting. 

 

Further, the ability to use non-cryptographic hashes and checksums would be useful, such as MurmurHash or CRC.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hash_functions

Having the implementation benefit from hardware acceleration (AES-NI / CUDA) would be a great plus for high volume applications. 

 

For reference, these are some hash algorithms that could be useful in workflows:

SHA-1

SHA-256

Whirlpool

xxHash

MurmurHash
SpookyHash
CityHash

Checksum
CRC-16
CRC-32
CRC-32 MPEG-2
CRC-64

BLAKE-256
BLAKE-512
BLAKE2s
BLAKE2b
ECOH
FSB
GOST
Grøstl
HAS-160
HAVAL
JH
MD2
MD4
MD6
RadioGatún
RIPEMD
RIPEMD-128
RIPEMD-160
RIPEMD-320
SHA-224
SHA-256
SHA-384
SHA-512
SHA-3 (originally known as Keccak)
Skein
Snefru
Spectral Hash
Streebog
SWIFFT
Tiger

PLEASE add a count function to Formula/Multi-Row Formula/Multi-Field Formula!

 

I have searched for alternatives but am just confused about how to store the result for the total number of rows from Summarise or Count Records in a variable that can then be used within a Formula tab. It should not be that difficult to just add equivalents to R's nrow() and ncol().

A problem I'm currently trying to solve and feel like I'm spending way too much time on it..

 

I have a data set which has some data in it from multiple languages, and I only want English values.  I was able to get rid of the words with non English letters with a little regular expression and filtering.  However, there's some words that do contain all English letters but aren't English.  What I'm trying to do is bring in an English dictionary to compare words and see which rows have non English words according to the dictionary.  However, this is proving to be a bit harder than I thought.  I think I can do it, but it feels like this should be much simpler than it is.

 

It would be great to have a tool that would run a "spell check" on fields (almost all dictionaries for all languages are available free online).  This could also be useful also just for cleaning up open text types of data where people type stuff in quickly and don't re-read it! :-)

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.

It would be a handy feature if it were possible to choose a data type for an input tool to read the data in as. For example, if a dataset has multiple fields with different data types, it would be handy to be able to make the Input Tool read and output them all as a string, if needed. This would also make a handy tool, a sort of blanket data conversion to convert all fields to the specified type.

Ever since Alteryx 11 came out, the way dates and DateTimes are handled and computed changed from v10.  Formulas that I had working before no longer work.  The single biggest culprit I tend to see for this problem is that Alteryx 11 no longer seems to be able to intelligently compare Date and DateTime formats.  This is kind of annoying because it forces me to run a DateTime function on all my Date fields for doing comparisons.


For example, I have a formula that I use to calculate if a date is the beginning of the month.  That formula is:

 

IF DateTimeTrim([Snapshot Date],"month") = [Snapshot Date]
THEN 1
ELSE 0
ENDIF

Where in the above, Snapshot Date is a date field with data incoming in a format like "2017-01-01".

 

In Alteryx 10, this formula returned as expected, true.  However, in Alteryx 11, it returns false.  When I dove into this a bit more, I noted that DateTimeTrim will always return a DateTime format, so the formula is attempting to compare "2017-01-01 00:00:00" to "2017-01-01".  For some reason, Alteryx now doesn't think this comparison will result to true.

 

To address this, I now have to do:

IF DateTimeTrim([Snapshot Date],"month") = DateTimeTrim([Snapshot Date], "day")
THEN 1
ELSE 0
ENDIF

My suggestion: Let comparisons between Date and DateTime formats work with the assumption that any Date field is as of midnight that day.  In the example above, Alteryx would implicitly assume that "2017-01-01" is "2017-01-01 00:00:00" for any comparisons to DateTime, like it did in the past.

Would it be possible to add some additional options to the running total, in particular average (max, st dev. may be useful) to the running sum tool or create a rolling average tool where you can group by multiple fields and have a rolling window for the last x rows, which you select?  I know this can be done in the Multi-Row formula and with the moving summarise tool tool (http://www.chaosreignswithin.com/2014/12/moving-summarize.html), however the former is capped by 10,000 rows and alteryx crashes on my mac when trying to click on the multi-row formul tool with 6000 rows.  Also it takes a several hours to analyse 1 file, and would like to have a solution to do this on a daily basis. Also I need to be able to so a rolling average over the last 11,999 rows, as this would be the last 20 minutes of data using a 10Hz GPS unit. This would be a great tool I think.

 

 

I am on a forecasting project where we convert one vector of forecasts into another vector of forecasts by multiplying by a conversion matrix. This is very clumsy and fragile to do in Alteryx meaning we have to drop out to Excel. The ability to do very simple matrix multiplication in Alteryx would be very useful here and in other use cases. I realise you can probably exit to R and do the job, but for something so basic that shouldn't be required.

 

The relational representation of an mxp matrix is a three column table of cardinality mxp with columns { I , J , A }, where I labels the first index set with index i, J labels the second index set with index j, and A labels the numeric values with value a(i,j).  Given a second pxn  matrix { J, K, B } in relational form we should be able to multiply them to get a mxn matrix { I, K, C} in relational form where of course c(i,k) = sum over j in J of a(i,j)*b(j,k).

 

Vectors can of course be represented as 1x and x1 matrices. If you really wanted to go to town this could be generalised to array processing ala APL2.

Hi,

 

Recently I was helping a client to design the workflow to do transformation. In the middle of the work, I feel a bit lost on handling so many fields and thinking it would be great if there is a feature that allow me to track the field actions along the workflow. It could be something like a configuration on the canvas, user activate it only when they want to.

And when it is activated, the workflow could become:

23.PNG

So it is easier to find the path of certain field along the whole workflow.

 

Or is there any method to achieve this at the moment?

 

Thanks.

 

Kenneth

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:

Split workflow:

  • By Field: Field Name (perhaps with summarize functions such as min/max, etc.)
  • By Formula (same configuration as current)
  • By Filter
    • Field
    • Operator
    • Variable

FlipIt.png

 

As my Alteryx workflows are becoming more complex and involve integrating and conforming more and more data sources it is becoming increasingly important to be able to communicate what the output fields mean and how they were created (ie transformation rules) as output for end user consumption; particular the file target state output. 

 

It would be great if Alteryx could do the following: 

1. Produce a simple data dictionary from the Select tool and the Output tool. The Select tool more or less contains everything that is important to the business user; It would be awesome to know of way to export this along with the actual data produced by the output tool (hopefully this is something I've overlooked and is already offered).

Examples:

  • using Excel would be to produce the output data set in one sheet and the data dictionary for all of its attributes in the second sheet.
  • For an odbc output you could load the data set to the database and have the option to either create a data dictionary as a database table or csv file (you'd also want to offer the ability to append that data to the existing dictionary file or table. 

 

2. This one is more complex; but would be awesome. If the workflow used could be exported into a spreadsheet Source to Target (S2T) format along with supporting metadata / data dictionary for every step of the ETL process. This is necessary when I need to communicate my ETL processes to someone that cannot afford to purchase an alteryx licence but are required to review and approved the ETL process that I have built. I'd be happy to provide examples of how someone would likely want to see that formatted. 

In SQL, obtaining partial sums in a grouped aggregation is as simple as adding "WITH ROLLUP" to the GROUP BY clause.

 

Could we get a "WITH ROLLUP" checkbox in the Summary Tool's confg panel in order to produce partial sums?

 

(This was initiated as a question here.)

 

Here is an example of without rollup vs. with rollup, in SSMS:

Capture.PNG

 

(Replacing "NULL" with the phrase "(any)" or some such, and we have a very useful set of partial sums.

 

  • Category Transform


It would help if there is some option provided wherein one can test the outcome of a formula during build itself rather than creating dummy workflows with dummy data to test same.

 

For instance, there can be a dynamic window, which generates input fields based on those selected as part of actual 'Formula', one can provide test values over there and click some 'Test' kind of button to check the output within the tool itself.

 

This would also be very handy when writing big/complex formulas involving regular expression, so that a user can test her formula without having to
switch screens to third party on the fly testing tools, or running of entire original workflow, or creating test workflows.

0 Stars

Please create the ability to Concat a field in the In-DB Summarize Tool similar to the regular Summarize tool. This would enable much faster processing on concatenating fields using the database's processing power vs. the local machine.

0 Stars

Improve Help Documentation or in-tool options for handling null values in statistical tools like Weighted Average or Linear Regression. For instance, checkbox to remove null value records, or at least warn users.

 

In the processing of learning to perform linear regression in RStudio and Alteryx, I came across differing outputs depending on how null values were addressed. Take the Weighted Average tool for example.

 

In R, the weighted.mean function treats null values in the variable of interest as if they were not there. If the user does not specify that null values exist, the result is NA. If any null values exist in the weight field, the result is NA.

 

Since I am more familiar with Alteryx, I originally did the data preparation—including calculating the weighted means—in Alteryx. When comparing these weighted means with those generated in R, I found that Alteryx treats the null values as zeros (i.e. includes them in the calculation). The user would have to know this is incorrect and first filter out the null values. See screenshot examples.

 

 

 

This is also the case within the Linear Regression tool. If null values are not omitted prior to regression, the results are wildly different. Perhaps this is known by more experienced users/statisticians, but this incorrect usage would have gone on unbeknownst to be had I not cross-checked with RStudio.

 

Alteryx_WeigtedAvg.PNGWeighted Average in AlteryxR_WeightedMean.PNGWeighted Mean in R

Top Starred Authors