Alteryx Designer

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 like 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

Have you ever used a Join tool with several (or many) Join fields, looked at the the L and R outputs and wondered, why didn't these records join? When there are many columns in your data, this can be a hard question to answer. It would be very handy if Alteryx could somehow report the Field(s) that each record failed to join on (perhaps as an optional added field to the L and R outputs).

  • Category Join

I think it would be nice to be able to more easily reorder fields that you're joining by in the Join tool.




For example, I have already joined by CASS_Address and CASS_City. After I did this, I realized I wanted to go back and join on Name, too, and I want that to be first. How the tool is configured now, if I want Name to be first, I must redo all of the drop downs. I would like to be able to add Name to the next set of open drop downs then use some arrow buttons to be able to move them up in the order (similar to the Summarize tool).

  • Category Join

*This is an idea from @fmvizcaino from the Portuguese Community*

  • Fuzzy Match tool in Portuguese


I'd say that 95.437% of the Joins I do are straight Inner Joins.


So each of those times I have to remember to go down to the Select part of the Join tool and deselect all the fields I joined on the Right Side since they'll be duplicates.


I'd like a checkbox like below (defaulted to CHECKED)  to deselect all the joined fields from the right hand side. In the rare cases where there's a need I could uncheck it.


Deselect R join fieldsDeselect R join fields

  • Category 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.

  • Category Join

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.

I think it would be incredibly helpful for Alteryx to include a "Fuzzy Join" operator, similar to what is described in this article:


Virtually every client/project I work on, there is a nead to clean up data.  Most of the time, that involved standardizing to some existing list of data.  However, as we all know, data from differnet systems or being manually collected will not match perfectly in all cases.  This is most often when I tend to use the Fuzzy Match tool.


However, I have to use a lot of weird steps to effectively create a "Fuzzy Join", which is something I've done using database functions in the past.  I think it would be great if a new tool were created that would do the following:

  • Accept two inputs, one for the "raw" data and another for the "list" of data to match to.
  • Perform a fuzzy join based on similar functionality to the fuzzy match, convert data to metaphone keys and then run Jaro/Levenstein matches.  By default, return only the highest matching result.
  • Expand the pre-process functionality to include words to exclude from the analysis (beyond just "and", "the" and "in").  
  • Match on the whole string.  No need to try and do joins based on partial words within a string.


This seems like a very common thing (I've created a macro for this anyway) that could be made to be simpler for everyday use.



I am finding that I often need to use a union tool after a join to capture the entire data set I am trying to isolate. It isn't a huge deal but it does happen often enough that it seems worthwhile to consider more options to customize the join type. For example- it would be helpful to be able to configure the Join tool itself to specify a left inner or left outer join instead of needing to Union the L and J anchors afterward.  

Sometimes on the "Join Tool" Interface in the Config screen.

You can not scroll down to read last item. The scroll bar is not at the bottom nor can be scrolled further down.



  • Category Join

We build some pretty robust maps with multiple connections and it would be great to copy the map tool and paste it with all of the connections when we want to tweak the map slightly but keep our original map.  It is a regular occurrence for us to have a very detailed map grouping by trade area name and then may want to have an overview map with all of the same connections but slightly different layout.  Tracking down the connections, reconnecting them and naming them accordingly takes a substantial amount of time even in the most organized of workflows.  This function would be a huge time-saver.  It would also be of value with joins and unions - anywhere you have multiple streams coming in.

Hi team,


I have a set of data that contains functional mapping of cost centers of the organisation. Such mapping is maintained by an administrator in the system and he manages and modifies/add changes.


Administrator does not consider the case sensitivity and sometime may write the same function name in UPPER and Proper case say for example "OPERATIONS" and "Operations"


I need to use such mapping in a workflow where I need to extract unique function names from the mapping.


Since a function has more than one cost centers so there are multiple lines for a function name in the mapping. 


I used Unique tool to do this. But this tool has a limitation that it considers the case sensitivity and reads the same word written in different case type as two unique values.


So in my case the i got two lines for the same function - one in UPPER case i.e. "OPERATIONS" and other with Proper case i.e. "Operations"


In order to tackle this problem, I used formula tool to convert entire text in uniform case type and then applied Unique tool.


Suggestion : I suggest enhancing the Unique tool to give user an option to configure it to consider case sensitivity while selecting unique values from the data.

Back in the days of Visual Basic 6, and Delphi 3 - the development environment for software coding started introducing the idea of Optimization hints - specifically looking at things like variables you'd declared but never used.


All of the Alteryx tips guides say "as early as possible use a Select tool to remove fields that are not used in the workflow" - it would be very useful if the Alteryx system did a reverse walk through the workflow (from outputs back to inputs) and suggested fields that were not used anywhere or components that could / should be removed because they don't go anywhere.


For example

  • Unused Components: if I have a filter with a summarize on both legs, and only one leg goes to an output - then the summarize on the other leg is just a waste of processor and memory.   
  • Unused Fields: If I've been lazy and brought in all the fields in a spreadsheet and only used two of them through a complex and heavy workflow - then suggest that I only bring in 2; or that I add a select component for those two fields early on
  • Ineffective data types:
    • Numbers stored in a double that could be stored in an int16; 
    • numbers stored in strings;
    • strings stored in very large containers which only need 10 characters;
    • dates stored in strings
    • Using a field for "True" and "False" instead of the Boolean True and False (1 and 0)

By adding a reverse-walk to a workflow (sort of like an A-B-Tree prune on a game-tree) - Alteryx could spot many of these kinds of issues - and by observing the workflow in action over a few iterations, it could identify the remainder.



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?



  • Category Join

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.

  • Category 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

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
  • Category Join



Seems there is inconsistency across tool when it comes to being case sensitive.


One simple example might be - For Join it works based on case sensitivity, but for Formula (Multi Row) - it works based on case insensitivity.


The Idea is to make the functionality case sensitive for all tools.


Benefits -


1) When some code is written in Alteryx, it works same way when coming to case consistency, and does not differ tool-by-tool.

2) It is common practice to make use of functions (Uppercase/Lowercase) to ignore differences coming out of case sensitivity for items like joining with some standardized values (like List of Values etc), so it should not be much of an overhead. At times the case related differences might be something which needs to be treated differently.

3) If a tool ignores case sensitivity, there might not be an easy way (if not - no way available) to make it work for case sensitivity as per business requirement, but vice versa is attainable making use of Uppercase/Lowercase case conversion functions.



Rohit Bajaj

When the append tool detects no records in the source, it throws a warning. I would like to have the ability to supress this warning. In general, all tools should have similar warning/error controls.

I haven't been able to find a similar idea, but I have a scenario were I'm fully joining a dataset but I get a mismatch of column names.


When using the column renaming functionality in the Join tool, data sent through the Left or Right connector is not renamed. When I'm performing a Full Join the Union tool is adding these columns to the resulting table.


The renaming column functionality of the Join Tool should apply to all join types for consistency. My workaround has been to avoid renaming columns in the Join tool if aiming to perform a multi-join.



I am aware there are posts on this in the community and that there is a macro available to do this on the public gallery, however I think this is such important functionality that it should be incorporated into the main product.  I want to be able to join 2 data sources by a date range.  In SQL the code would look like this:


select ric.*,map.*
Staging.TicksHourlySummary ric
LEFT OUTER JOIN Reference.ReutersInstrumentCodeMap map
on (
ric.#RIC = map.ReutersInstrumentCode
and ric.[Datetime] >= map.EffectiveFromDate
and ric.[Datetime] < map.EffectiveToDate




  • Category Join
Top Liked Authors