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!
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".
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:
The "Field Summary" tool and several others have a configuration requirement that provides a list of fields to select or deselect. The selection action is singular meaning you can only effect the action on one item in the list of many. As the number of fields we work with grows significantly this becomes a time consuming and tedious task.
This should be enhanced to allow highlighting of multiple fields to select or deselect as we can do in tools like the "Select" tool.
The field summary tool is an excellent resource to get an overview of the data and spot targets for analysis or data cleansing.
Unfortunately it has limitations either in the number of fields included or some combination of the number of fields and one or more of its attributes. There is nothing in the documentation I found to make a user aware of this. When you exceed N fields selected the system just hangs, indicating it is running but there is no connection progress shown and nothing seems to happen, even if you limit input to 1 record.
Through trial and error I found an approximate limit in number of fields I can include and still have it work.
I request that Alteryx update the tool help info and devise enhancements to dynamically load balance the tool so it can scale to the number of fields requested or at least warn when the limit is reached or approached. The latter warning could be similar to the red font warnings in the formula tool when you have a malformed expression. However a load balancing version is most desired.
The issue as it stands results in users wasting a lot of time trying to make the tool work as expected, then report it to support as an apparent bug in the tool which can be argued both ways.
I realize in the real world there are limits but in this real world we are seeing the number of fields to analyze increase significantly, especially when you have a data license and integrate 3rd party data to you own native data adding a hundred or hundreds more fields.
How about adding the ability to split intersecting trade areas at the points of intersection to create two new spatial objects. The two objects could then be used to process customer records and divide them into "territories" based on the line of intersection.
I am trying to use the Dynamic Replace to selectively update records in a set of variables from survey data. That is, I do not have all potential values in the “R” input of Dynamic Replace. Instead, I have a list of values that I would like altered from their current values by respondent (RespondentID) and question # (Q#). Currently, when I run the workflow, any Q#/ResponseID combos that are not in my “R” input are replaced with blanks. However, I would like an option that maintains the original data if there is nothing to replace the data with. Without this option, there are few (I'm still working on some ways) workarounds to ensure the integrity of the data.