Community Spring Cleaning week is here! Join your fellow Maveryx in digging through your old posts and marking comments on them as solved. Learn more here!
The Product Idea boards have gotten an update to better integrate them within our Product team's idea cycle! However this update does have a few unique behaviors, if you have any questions about them check out our FAQ.

Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

Share your Designer Desktop product ideas - we're listening!
Submitting an Idea?

Be sure to review our Idea Submission Guidelines for more information!

Submission Guidelines

Featured Ideas

I would like to see a pre-built visual flag or message/warning that shows if the join I made was cartesian or not.

 

To avoid cartesian joins I sometimes add a unique or summarize tool before the L or R inputs or add a message tool after the join.

 

If I don't do that then I sometimes calculate if the number of records in the L + C and L + R joins don't match up to the L and R input records.

 

It would be nice for Alteryx to be able to show some indication of if a cartesian join happened or not without having to add the extra tools or manual calculations

 

Something akin to Canvas>Connection Progress>Show Only When Running to be updated with the added functionality of Show with Cartesian Join Flags

It would be great if we can determine the type of join operation between the fields we choose to join. For example, if we join 2 fields a and b below, we should be able to determine the join operation whether it's an 'AND' or 'OR' operation.

MSLaiShahirah_0-1664721193192.png

 

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.

 

Capture.PNG

I suggest an additional tool that would allow adding columns to the data, if and only if they do not exist already.

 

Currently working with data that has a dynamic set of columns can be a bit tiresome as the Select tool will not allow to select columns that have not been witnessed in the data.

 

Adding a tool that would ensure that certain columns are available downstream can currently be achieved by:

 

  1. 'Append Fields' tool with a 'Text Input' tool which will always append the fields, renaming them on the fly if needed
  2. 'Union' tool with a 'Text Input' tool

Both options do not seem straight forward and I expect have a performance impact.

 

A separate tool to achieve this seems the more user friendly and performance oriented way.

Hi Folks

 

So have been using the fuzzy match function quite a bit of recently. Love the tool, however it could benefit form being able to wire in a list of 'Don't generate' keywords. 

At the moment we can enter them manually, however where for example i might want to exclude city or area names etc... from the do not generate list this becomes quite a tedious manual entry task, so being able to load in keyword data from pre-existing lists etc.. would be a time saver. 

 

Cheers

 

Gavin

 

 

Is it possible to have a feature for Left / Right Outer Joins within the existing (out of DB) Join tool? At the moment, let's say I want to do a Left Outer Join, I have to do a Union of the Left segment & of the Inner Join. This is a little inconvenient. Any way we can give users a choice about Left / Right Outer Join and Left / Right Inner Join?

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.

 

Join.JPG

Please create a way to swap or change the order of the inputs and outputs for tools with two or more inputs and outputs. 

 

For example: When creating a workflow a join tool can end up moving to a location on the canvas that causes flow paths to cross.  To fix the overlapping paths with a simple option of change order of input and output with a simple up and down would be much better than deleting the paths and reconnecting and redefining all of the join fields.

 

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

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

)

 

 

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.  

Hi All,

I think this suggestion would be be ideal for the Join tool and it's related cousins (Join Multiple etc.) and would improve the experience of data blending for all users.

I am going to rely on Qlik Sense for this explanation as this functionality is native to that product.

 

When we bring in two data sources and use the join tool to blend we are required to select the field or fields upon which we want to base our join.

In Qlik Sense we can see our two data sources:

 

2 Data Source bubbles.PNG

 

We can then drag them together and it will form suggestions based on data association density:

 

Join.PNG

Join suggestions.PNG

 

This helps with identifying how tables should be joined, and at the very least shows commonalities between data streams, based on the data within the tables and not any naming conventions.

It would be nice to have the functionality to generate suggestions based on association density between two data streams, and then to apply the join from a selection.

 

 Thoughts?

Hello!

I recently did Alteryx Weekly Challenge #243, in which i needed to use a join multiple tool at the end to join my three results.

To do this, i joined based on Record Position - and the join was fine, however the order was completely different to that at which was set inside the join tool:

TheOC_1-1626345868403.png

TheOC_2-1626345877763.png



As you can imagine, this was very confusing. However, it seems that if i move one field down, and then back up, it works fine:

TheOC_3-1626345904452.pngTheOC_4-1626345911110.pngTheOC_5-1626345920317.png

TheOC_6-1626345968685.png

 



This seems to suggest that this selection is not used until it has been adjusted, which is difficult to troubleshoot and may be confusing for new users. I simply suggest a small fix for this, to take this order by default.

Cheers,
TheOC



Currently it appears that the Make Group tool sets the Group by the smallest value and the Key is then anything larger than that value. 

It would be great to be able to specify which key it is that the grouping should occur within. 

Currently there seems to be no way to "drop" or remove lines if no match is found, even if you have asked to "Match Whole Word Only". I think it would be useful to have the option to completely remove entire rows if it contains what is essentially an invalid entry.

 

For example:

 

bkwilson_0-1599579461636.png

 

Rows 4, 5 and 6 do not conform to the correct format that I want to find and replace. They are invalid. With Find replace as is, the output would include the invalid rows. It would be much easier if FR had two outputs, one of which includes the invalid rows, if given the config option to drop any fields that did not match the reference table.

Hello Alteryx,

 

In communicating with your agent Eddie Wong about a question (ref:_00DE0JJZ4._50044uMC7T:ref), he confirmed that Alteryx currently does not have an option to coalesce IDs when merging tables in the "Join" or "Join Multiple" tools.  This functionality is available in SQL and SAS, for example.

 

This code demonstrates it.

 

data d1;

      input ID age;

      datalines;

1 45

2 36

3 77

;

run;

 

 

 

data d2;

      input ID height;

      datalines;

1 138

3 176

5 197

;

run;

 

 

 

 

proc sql;

      select      coalesce(d1.id, d2.id) as id,

                  d1.age,

                  d2.height

      from  d1

                  full join

                  d2

      on          d1.id = d2.id;

quit;

 

 

 

Could you please consider adding this option into the "Join" and "Join Multiple" tools?

 

 

Hello Alteryx Team,

 

It would be great to have the possibility to output joined and unjoined records in the 'Join Multiple' tool into 2 separate output achors. Another possibility would be to have a switch in the tool's configuration to 'Only output records that did not join'.

 

The idea behind this is that sometimes you need to work only with the 'problematic' records that are not present in all of the inputs and it would be great to have an easy way how to get to them. I am aware that this can be done with a Filter tool after the Join Multiple but it would be nice to have this feature directly in the tool.

 

Thank you very much for considering this idea.

 

Regards,

Jan Laznicka

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

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

  • Fuzzy Match tool in Portuguese

It would be immensely helpful if there can be a way to display the 'Manually Configure Fields' section of Union tool to the App user.

Something on the following lines - User uploads few files and then a window opens up onscreen which allows the user to 'manually configure fields' just like it is visible in the Union tool in a workflow. Its best use case is where we have a template with defined headers and the user just need to upload a new file/files and align the incoming fields correctly with the blank fields of a template.

Top Liked Authors