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 feel like I must be missing something, but saw a similar suggestion for TDE outputs, so maybe this really doesn't currently exist. We sometimes add descriptions to fields we create, and some inputs come with descriptions, but we can't seem to get them into the final database using the Output tool. Can there be a checkbox to persist the metadata along with the data when writing to a database?

Hi,

 

I would like to be able to modify my connection string in the Alias Manager.

 

Connection string is greyed out :

cnxstr_02.jpg

 

If I want to change my connection string, I have to create a new alias.

 

 

I'm not sure if this will ever be possible, but I know that it would greatly benefit me and I'm sure thousands of other users. In my work place I am constantly working in a conference room and at my desk. At my desk I am wired into an Ethernet connection while in the conference room I am wireless. When I start my workflows after working with my team in the conference room, I can't go back to my desk until the workflow is finished running because I am changing internet connections and I lose connection to the databases. With the pause button it would become possible to run a workflow and then change my internet without losing connection to the databases.

 

Another use for this would be while testing a workflow with a new tool. There are times I run a workflow that can take a few hours, but then I realize there is a mistake somewhere in my workflow, where the data hasn't reached yet. I think it would be very helpful to be able to pause the workflow and add the new tool in, while seeing results from tools it has already passed through.

 

But yet again this is just an idea that relates to me, I wonder what the rest of the community thinks.

A seemingly minor task that has popped up several times on my team is the ability to select a subset of columns using an input list.  Different people have achieved this in different ways (transpose/join/cross-tab, dynamic rename/select), but it seems like a common enough task to warrant a single-tool solution. 

 

R has a simple way to do this:

# create a vector of the columns we would like to select
columns <- c("column_b", "column_d")

# subset based on the column names we defined in our "columns" vector
df_subset <- df[columns]

 

We have built a macro to achieve this (attached), but I would love if there was a second input anchor on the Dynamic Select tool, with list-based select mode as an option in the dropdown.  

 

The macro currently has a minor annoyance, where the user gets a "RecordInfo::CreateRecord" error presented on their palette when they choose the "Keep Columns in List" entry.  This error goes away with a run or an F5 refresh, but if anyone has a suggestion for getting rid of this, it would also be appreciated.

I reported this to the support team but was told it was by design and to post here.

 

In-DB Inefficient SQL

I would like to report that the In-DB tools are generating horribly inefficient SQL code for simple operations.  It seems no matter what tools you use every statement is starting with a nested 'Select * From'.

 

Example Simple workflow:

  Support1.jpgSupport2.jpg

 

This is a simple Select and Group by but the SQL Generated is:

 

SELECT "ShipTo", "ShipTo_Name", SUM("ECM_3PL_OVERHEADS_Unit") AS "Sum_ECM_3PL_OVERHEADS_Unit"

FROM (SELECT * FROM "_SYS_BIC"."shell.app.gsap.FL000_LSC.FL002_CTS.INT.RPT/CA_CTS_RPT_MAIN_001") AS "a"

GROUP BY "ShipTo", "ShipTo_Name"

 

This is taking a very long time to execute:

 

Statement 'SELECT "ShipTo", "ShipTo_Name", SUM("ECM_3PL_OVERHEADS_Unit") AS "Sum_ECM_3PL_OVERHEADS_Unit" FROM ...'

successfully executed in 15.752 seconds  (server processing time: 15.699 seconds)

 

Whereas if I take the same query and remove the nested Select *:

 

SELECT "ShipTo", "ShipTo_Name", SUM("ECM_3PL_OVERHEADS_Unit") AS "Sum_ECM_3PL_OVERHEADS_Unit"

FROM "_SYS_BIC"."shell.app.gsap.FL000_LSC.FL002_CTS.INT.RPT/CA_CTS_RPT_MAIN_001" AS "a"

GROUP BY "ShipTo", "ShipTo_Name"

 

It is very quick:

 

Statement 'SELECT "ShipTo", "ShipTo_Name", SUM("ECM_3PL_OVERHEADS_Unit") AS "Sum_ECM_3PL_OVERHEADS_Unit" FROM ...'

successfully executed in 1.211 seconds  (server processing time: 1.157 seconds)

 

So Alteryx is generating queries up to x13 slower than they should be thereby defeating the point of using In-DB.  As you can imagine in a workflow where we have multiple Connect In-DB tools this is a really substantial amount of time.  Example used above is from SAP HANA DB has 1.9m rows and ~90 columns but we have much bigger tables/views than this.

 

If you look you will see its same behaviour for all In-DB tools where each tool creates another nested Select with its particular operator.

 

MY SUGGESTION:

So my suggestion is that Alteryx should combine the SQL of the first few tools and avoid using SELECT * completely unless no Select tools have been used.  So it should combine:

- Connect In-DB + Select

- Connect In-DB + Filter

- Connect In-DB + Summarise

 

Preferably it should combine/flatten everything up until the first join or union.  But Select + Filter are a must!

 

Note it seems some DB's can cope OK with un-nesting these big nested queries in the query plans for some Tables but normally not for Views.  But some cannot cope at all and so the In-DB tools cannot even be used to Browse 100 records (due to select *).

Macros are GREAT, huge timesavers, but nesting them is a royal pain.

I find I have to create the prompts of the nested macro again in the parent macro for them to be seen by the user.  Could the future Alteryx sense any un-handled nested macro prompts and simply pass them through to the parent macro user interface? 

11-6-2018 3-08-44 PM.png11-6-2018 3-10-35 PM.png

We now have the ability to output to an ESRI File Geodatabase, which is great, but it only allows you to output it to the WGS84 coordinate system.  I would like to have the same functionality to export it to other projections or coordinate systems similar to the ESRI Shapefile or ESRI Personal Geodatabase output tools (we specifically need NAD83 but I'm sure others would like other options as well).

Currently, when one uses the Google BigQuery Output tool, the only options are to create a table, or append data to an existing table.  It would be more useful if there was a process to replace all data in the table rather than appending. Having the option to overwrite an existing table in Google BigQuery would be optimal.

in our organization people are moving away from network drives to BOX for file repository and they needs to use to connect to BOX using Alteryx as an Input and Output platform where they should be able to access files to read and write. 

Currently few of the users are able to use the BOX as a repository using BOX Sync tool (Map BOX as a network drive) but that is not at all useful when they try to save into a gallery and run or schedule on the gallery. A connector for BOX will be of great help. 

I would like Alteryx to create an internship support program that provides a license similar to a trial but for an extended period, say 6 to 8 weeks, and tied to core certification. you could repackage much of the existing training into a curriculum aimed at educating new users sufficiently on the elements necessary to pass the Core certification within a short time frame.

 

Our organization just launched an internship program and had our first group of interns start 5 weeks ago.  I had to come up with a plan that provided the intern a valuable experience.  I decided to make Alteryx Core certification a key objective and put him on a spare license we had for the duration and worked with him to get his core. 

 

I think this could be a great marketing tool for Alteryx.  It would get more people entering the workforce educated about your product so that no matter where they end up they might already be a fan and suggest the tool as a solution in a new job that doesn’t currently know about you.   Conversely it gives interns a certification that shows they know more than the other applicants for a job where Alteryx is already a tool.  I am sure there are tax benefits to Alteryx as well for each license used.

 

This is kind of how we discovered Alteryx, we had issues with volume of data and technology limitations (Excel) and someone had used Alteryx at a prior company and suggested we try it out.  We purchased a couple licenses, then within a couple years we had 16 licenses.  You can’t sell someone who doesn’t know you exist…the internship type license is a good idea to expand the list of people in the workplace who know you exist.  Even better they will have have reached a level of knowledge, core certification, to have a basic appreciate your value.

 

If you have a field length of say 10 in a Select Tool, then you use a Left Join tool and change that length to say 4. This turns that field red - as it should.  Then add a Select tool after the Union.  It should say 4 in the second Select tool.  But instead it says 10.  If it was changed to 10 (and it wasn't) then the field s/b red.

Hi

 

We have recently upgraded to 18.3 and noticed that the Filter tool expression box has lost its colour coding of expression elements. The Formula tool (which still has the 18.2 look and feel) however still has the old colour coding.

 

It would be great if the colour coding could be included for all tools with expression editing boxes.

 

Examples attached for clarity.

 

Thanks

When commenting an expression (with // or /* <> */), the popup box shouldn't appear as it's essentially free text.

 

Quite irritating when writing a block explanation of logic or something similar.

 

Luke

Today, the behaviour of batch macro can be strange.

 

If I refer to https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Discussions/Batch-Macro-not-looping-after-running-...

 

we can have big behaviour differences between :

-wf and app

-designer and scheduler

Example here with a batch macro running for all lines in designer and only for line in scheduler

 

macro_1.pngDesigner works finemacro_2.pngScheduler only runs the first line!!

I know the turnaroud (just use a message box) but it's not natural and I think

-at least the same behaviour is needed in any use case
-if you want to do some optimization, ok, but make it an option!!

Hopefully this is the right place to post this and it hasn't been suggested already but I think it would be useful to add a numeric indicator to the formula tool to show how many formulas are being done with one tool. It would be useful when going back into or sharing workflows that a user would know more than one function is being carried out at that point. Currently I change the annotation to show how many but I think it would be useful if the icon changed dynamically. Below is a mockup of what I think it should look like.

Thanks,

Pete

2018-08-20_14-03-20.png

 

It would be great if we could change the name of a variable upstream it follows through in formulae etc.

This is not a new idea but an old one. It is an elementary requirement which everyone talks about since 2013 and still ignored.

Can we get CONTROL OF EXECUTION OF THE FLOW OR at least EXECUTION OF CONTAINERS ASAP??!!

I have a requirement here in Macquaire but had to give them a workaround as this basic functionality is still missing

 

Please action

 

Cheers

Paolo Bottiglione

While challenge 41 was fun to calculate weekdays between 2 dates, there should be a formula similar to networkdays in excel to do the same function

Today I have some workflows which have certain steps that occur after files are output.  I have these set up inside of Tool Containers so that I can easily enable/disable them as I am working if I do not want to produce output for this particular run.  However, sometimes if I need to troubleshoot on a workflow that I haven't worked on for awhile, I can neglect to disable these, which can cause errors.  This is usually harmless, but annoying.

 

Having two more options on Tool Containers could really help to improve this!

Disable When Browse Tools Disabled would be useful for any analysis/debugging steps that I only want to run when I am browsing to find data, but should not run otherwise.


Disable When Output Disabled would be really useful to ensure that these tools are turned off alongside the "Disable all tools that write output" option in Workflow-Configuration-Runtime.

 

This would save me a lot of unnecessary error messages and moments of panic, and would make these types of workflows easier for other users to debug without extensive notes.

// This is my new formula
MAX([Price] * [Quantity],0)
// This was my old formula
// [Price] * [Quantity]

Imagine being able to SELECT your text block (could be many lines) and right-clicking to see an option to Comment or Un-Comment those configuration statements.  I thought that you'd like it too.

 

Cheers,

Mark

Top Starred Authors