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.
In the excel (attached), all you have to do is click on the highlighted blue cell, select the “data” tab up top and then “What-if analysis” and finally “goal seek.” Then you set the dialogue box up to look like this:
Set cell: G9
To Value: 330
By changing cell" J6
And hit “Okay.” Excel then iteratively finds the value for the cell J6 that makes the cell G9 equal 330. Can I build a module that will do the same thing? I’m figuring I wouldn’t have to do it iteratively, if I could build the right series of formulas/commands. You can see what I’m trying to accomplish in the formulas I’ve built in Excel, but essentially I’m trying to build a model that will tell me what the % Adjustment rate should be for the other groups when I’ve picked the first adjustment rate, and the others need to change proportionally to their contribution to the remaining volume.
There doesn't really seem to be a way to do this in Alteryx that I can see. I hate to think there is something that excel can do that Alteryx can't!
I know cache-related ideas have already been posted (cache macros; cache tools), but I would like it if cache were simply built into every tool, similar to the way it is on the Input Tool.
During workflow development development, I'll run a workflow repeatedly, and especially if there is sizeable data or an R tool involved, in can get really time consuming.
I can see where managing cache could be tricky: in a large workflow processing a lot of data, nobody would want to maintain dozens of copies of that data. But there may be ways of just monitoring changes to the workflow in order to know if something needs to be rebuilt or not: e.g. suppose I cache a Predictive Tool, and then make no changes to any tool preceeding it in the workflow... the next time I run, the engine should be able to look at "cache flags" and/or "modified flags" to determine where it should start: basically start at the "furthest along cache" that has no changes preceeding it.
When viewing spatial data in the browse tool, the colors that show a selected feature from a non-selected one are too similar. If you are zoomed out and have lots of small features, it's nearly impossible to tell which spatial feature you have selected.
Would be a great option to give the user the ability to specify the border and/or fill color for selected features. This would really help them stand out more. The custom option would also be nice so we can choose a color that is consistent with other GIS softwares we may use.
As an example, I attached a pic where I have 3 records selected but takes some scanning to find where they are in the "map".
As I understand SFTP support is planned to be included in the next release (10.5). Is there plans to support PKI based authentication also?
This would be handy as lots of companies are moving files around with 3rd parties and sometimes internally also and to automate these processes would be very helpful. Also, some company policies would prevent using only Username/Password for authentication.
The Field Summary tool is a very useful addition for quickly creating data dictionaries and analysing data sets. However it ignores Boolean data types and seems to raise a strange Conversion Error about 'DATETIMEDIFF1: "" is not a valid DateTime' - with no indication it doesn't like Boolean field types. (Note I'm guessing this error is about the Boolean data types as there's no other indication of an issue and actual DateTime fields are making it through the tool problem free.)
Using the Field Summary tool will actually give the wrong message about the contents of files with many fields as it just ignores those of a data type it doesn't like.
The only way to get a view on all fields in the table is using the Field Info tool, which is also very useful, however it should be unnecessary to 'left join' (in the SQL sense) between Field Info and Field Summary to get a reliable overview of the file being analysed.
Therefore can the Field Summary tool be altered to at least acknowledge the existence of all data types in the file?
I have a very large geospatial point dataset (~950GB) . When I do a spatial match on this dataset to a small polygon, the entire large geospatial point dataset has to be read into the tool so that the geospatial query can be performed. I suspect that the geospatial query could be significantly speed up of the geospatial data could be indexed (referenced) to a grid (or multiple grids) so that the geoquery could identify the general area of overlap, then extract the data for just that area before performing the precise geoquery. I believe Oracle used (uses) this method of storing and referencing geospatial data.
I found what I think is a bug. Usually the bug maker is me, but on this occasion I really think that it could be Alteryx (version 10.1.6.60263). Maybe we could add a category for posts as: Is this a bug? Currently, the idea labels allow for a "BUG". But is bug reporting really part of New Ideas?
I'm going to report my findings to email@example.com.
For those interested in what I'm observing:
Try creating a INTERFACE using an ERROR MESSAGE tool. Once you've got a formula and an error message, check the ANNOTATION. Do you see one on the canvas and do you see it in the configuration? Try putting a brief annotation into the Annotation box. I believe that the Annotation should appear in the annotation box as it does with other tools. Check the canvas and see what happens. Here's what mine looks like: