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
I would like to be able to use the join tool to join on inequalities.  We could join two tables, A and B on A.value is >= B.value1 AND A.value <= B.value2.  This would replicate the "between" function in SQL.  The equvalent feature in Tableau is pictured below.

  • Join
I would like to be able to use the join tool to join on inequalities.  We could join two tables, A and B on A.value is >= B.value1 AND A.value <= B.value2.  This would replicate the "between" function in SQL.  The equvalent feature in Tableau is pictured below.

  • Join

Our company is still using 9.5 so if this is addressed in 10....I appologize.

 

Currently the Join Tool Options drop down has [Select-->Select All] and [Select-->Deselect All]. I think an additional [Select-->Select All Left] and [Select-->Select All Right] would be handy.

 

Thank You

I've come to realize that the JOIN tool is case-sensitive by design but it would be helpful if you could turn that behavior on/off (via checkbox?) within the JOIN tool.  For those of us that work predominantly in database environments that are not case-sensitive, this default behavior has caused me problems many times.  Having to force the case to either upper or lower upstream of the JOIN on both flows in order to ensure a successful join is an extra step that would not be necessary if you could disable case-sensitive with a checkbox.

  • Join

Our company is still using 9.5 so if this is addressed in 10....I appologize.

 

Currently the Join Tool Options drop down has [Select-->Select All] and [Select-->Deselect All]. I think an additional [Select-->Select All Left] and [Select-->Select All Right] would be handy.

 

Thank You

I've come to realize that the JOIN tool is case-sensitive by design but it would be helpful if you could turn that behavior on/off (via checkbox?) within the JOIN tool.  For those of us that work predominantly in database environments that are not case-sensitive, this default behavior has caused me problems many times.  Having to force the case to either upper or lower upstream of the JOIN on both flows in order to ensure a successful join is an extra step that would not be necessary if you could disable case-sensitive with a checkbox.

  • Join

When bringing data together it is often needed to assign a source to the data.  Generally this happens when you union data and need to know things later about the data for context.  It would save time to generate a source field that is assigned based upon the input connections of the union tool.  Perhaps when unioning data you can assign a name to each input stream?

 

 

  • Join
In other data programs like access or Toad you can put conditions on a join. You can choose if something is greater than, less than, left join, right join, etc.
But with Alteryx you are only allowed to join a perfect match. It would be really great if you could add that functionality into 9.0
  • Join
In other data programs like access or Toad you can put conditions on a join. You can choose if something is greater than, less than, left join, right join, etc.
But with Alteryx you are only allowed to join a perfect match. It would be really great if you could add that functionality into 9.0
  • Join

When bringing data together it is often needed to assign a source to the data.  Generally this happens when you union data and need to know things later about the data for context.  It would save time to generate a source field that is assigned based upon the input connections of the union tool.  Perhaps when unioning data you can assign a name to each input stream?

 

 

  • Join
When manually configuring a Union tool within a module/app, once it's saved, if you go in at any point in the future, and change anything upstream from the Union Tool, it causes an error "[some field name] has been changed and the Union Tool needs to be reconfigured".

This happens even if you do not reconfigure any upstream tools, but mearely access them, physically move them, say, an inch to the left or something like that, etc.  Basically if you just "touch" any tool upstream, the Union Tool thinks that the manual config needs to be done over.  But even if you do reconfig the Union Tool (either delete it and bring a new one in, or change the current one to Auto and then back to manual), it STILL does not recognize the tool as being correct.

The only way I have found to correct this issue is to click Play, and let it throw the error.  Add Select Tools before the Union Tool to change the names to be common, then click on the Union Tool, and switch it to auto.  Then click Play again.  This can be very inconvenient if you have a module that takes hours (although you can limit your input records).

My suggestion would be to either disable the manual configuration, or add notes to the Help Files stating to use the manual configuration at your own risk, because once it's set and works at the time of creation, you cannot modify any upstream tools thereafter or else it will break the Union Tool and it cannot be repaired -- only choice is to use the Select Tool as I described above
  • Join
When manually configuring a Union tool within a module/app, once it's saved, if you go in at any point in the future, and change anything upstream from the Union Tool, it causes an error "[some field name] has been changed and the Union Tool needs to be reconfigured".

This happens even if you do not reconfigure any upstream tools, but mearely access them, physically move them, say, an inch to the left or something like that, etc.  Basically if you just "touch" any tool upstream, the Union Tool thinks that the manual config needs to be done over.  But even if you do reconfig the Union Tool (either delete it and bring a new one in, or change the current one to Auto and then back to manual), it STILL does not recognize the tool as being correct.

The only way I have found to correct this issue is to click Play, and let it throw the error.  Add Select Tools before the Union Tool to change the names to be common, then click on the Union Tool, and switch it to auto.  Then click Play again.  This can be very inconvenient if you have a module that takes hours (although you can limit your input records).

My suggestion would be to either disable the manual configuration, or add notes to the Help Files stating to use the manual configuration at your own risk, because once it's set and works at the time of creation, you cannot modify any upstream tools thereafter or else it will break the Union Tool and it cannot be repaired -- only choice is to use the Select Tool as I described above
  • Join

I can see that the Venn diagram is very nice for a new user to understand the Join tool (which is a super-great tool by the way).  But I would like to be able to close up the Venn diagram to give more room to see the variables listed below.

Thanks!
Susan

  • Join

I can see that the Venn diagram is very nice for a new user to understand the Join tool (which is a super-great tool by the way).  But I would like to be able to close up the Venn diagram to give more room to see the variables listed below.

Thanks!
Susan

  • Join
Problem: When you configure fields manually in the union control and then go back to remove a field it throws up an error that "XYZ field missing"
Solution: One needs to change the config to "arrange fields by name" then refresh before you can arrange fields manually

I would like this problem to be handled by some method that tracks for changes and warns the user rather than throw an error.
  • Join
Problem: When you configure fields manually in the union control and then go back to remove a field it throws up an error that "XYZ field missing"
Solution: One needs to change the config to "arrange fields by name" then refresh before you can arrange fields manually

I would like this problem to be handled by some method that tracks for changes and warns the user rather than throw an error.
  • Join
0 Stars

Today, any Alteryx tool with "Select" functionality has an option for "Dynamic or Unknown Fields" which, when checked, allows any new fields to pass through that tool.  This is a great function for most of the tools as you can allow workflow updates to pass through the tool without issue.

However, in the Join tool, there are some use cases where there is NEVER a reason to pass new fields from one side or the other into the tool, but you might still want new fields from a primary process.  Examples being something like a lookup/cross-reference to do an inclusive join, where adding new fields to the lookup might inadvertently pass these downstream.  Having the option to only allow unknown fields from one side through would greatly enhance this output.

0 Stars

When using ConsumerView macro from Join tool palette for demographic data matching from Experian, the matching yield is higher than compared to Business Match marco. It would be great if the matching key for telephone number could be added to Business Match (US) tool the yield might increase and will provide more value to the firmographic data sets than it currently yields by matching just the D&B Business Names and addresses only.

 

  • Join
0 Stars

Was thinking with my peers at work that it might be good to have join module expanded both for desktop and in-database joins.

 

As for desktop join: left and right join shows only these records that are exclusive to that side of operation. Would it be possible to have also addition of data that is in common?

As for in-db join: db join acts like classic join (left with matching, right with matching data). Would it be possible to get as well only-left, only-right join module?

 

 

0 Stars

I came across the Find Replace Tool when I needed to find values from a column in one table in a column in another table. My first instance to solve the problem was to write a batch macro with a contains function in a formula followed by a not null filter (see attachment). This worked perfectly besides the fact that it was slow. Then I got excited when I discovered the Find Replace Tool accomplishes the same thing WAY faster, but I was wrong.

 

What I would love is the equivalent of an SQL query like this:

 

SELECT

    A.1

    B.1

FROM A

    INNER JOIN

        B

    ON A.1 LIKE "%" || B.2 || "%"

 

which is a legal query in SQLite and is equal to the output of the attached macro. This is what I wish the Find Replace tool could do (Or a different tool), but it only finds one instance per "Find Within Field" value. The tools decision making doesn't line up with the decision-making that I need, for example it doesn't return the longest values found, instead the one with the first key to appear in the field. One way I've found to configure it better is to string a number of these together, that will give me a better result but still won't find every instance and uses 90 or so tools when I feel I should only need 1-3 to accomplish the same thing.

 

Instead of an Inner Join, the Find Replace is more like of Left Outer Join followed by a Unique() on A.1. Is there a way to accomplish this out-of-database in Alteryx?

Top Starred Authors