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 often need to create a record ID that automatically increments but grouped by a specific field. I currently do it using the Multi-Row Formula tool doing [Field-1:ID]+1 because there is no group by option in the Record ID tool.

 

Also, sometimes I need to start at 0 but the Multi-Row Formula tool doesn't allow this so I have to use a Formula tool right after to subtract 1.

 

So adding a group by option to the Record ID tool would allow the user not to use the multi-row formula to do this and to start at any value wanted.

Hello!

Currently when using the formula tool, you can create a string using the two following methods:

TheOC_0-1660057975884.png

With speech marks, or an apostrophe being used respectively.

 

I would expect both of these methods to behave the exact same way, however what is interesting is that if you type within the apostrophes anything that would prompt a formula, this is still prompted:

TheOC_1-1660058073228.png



This is not the case within the speech marks:

TheOC_2-1660058090523.png

This can cause mistakes with autocompletion when typing within the field. I propose a small QoL change that the formula tool will recognise a string is being written when within two apostrophes. I believe the logic is already built for that, given that it behaves in every other way the same, and highlights green too. 

 

 

Cheers,
TheOC

When using the unknown field in a select, you can either select or deselect the fields which will appear afterwards.

 

I would love to have an option or different to specify elements for fields to appear for instance having :

  • *unknown text where you could set the metadata type (for instance vwstring) and maximal length
  • *unknown numeric where you could set the type, double or fixed decimal

and for dates too

it would set a default behaviour for incoming text fields or numeric fields allowing for more precise deselction too.

Data Cleansing Tool:   There should be a sub-category on the "Punctuation" cleansing.  Ideally to have an option to "Include Only" or conversely "Exclude these characters" which would allow you for example to remove all characters except   "." from a dollar formatted field .  There are times when you need to clean almost everything except a certain punctuation or not. 

When configuring a FILTER tool, the results of your formula are uncertain until you RUN/PLAY the workflow.  Compare that experience with the configuration of a FORMULA tool where you see a "Data Preview" of the first record results.

 

capture.png

 

TRUE or FALSE could readily be added to the Filter Tool and save the execution time for the workflow.  

 

When you get to HTML tool versions, you could check many rows of data and potentially give back counts of TRUE and FALSE results as well.

 

I'll put this on my x-mas list and see if Santa has me on the naughty or nice list.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

Tools should not error with Zero rows, often when working with macros it is possible to have a scenario where zero rows or columns is legitimate. Some tools are fine with this and some are not. In my case the Select Tool does not allow it so I have to create a Work around with a Text Input tool.

IraWatt_0-1661023969561.png

 

It would be useful to be able to select a single container (containing a data input) or multiple containers using Shift, and run those and only those.

 

When building a new element to a larger workflow, I often enter a new Input in a new container, the ability to run just that container without having to turn off all my other containers would be really useful in speeding up the start of joining things together.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

Thanks,

 

Doug 

Hello all,

I suggest a new string function Repeat()

 

Repeat() forms a string consisting of the input string repeated the number of times defined by the second argument.

Repeat(text[, repeat_count])

 

Repeat('to',3) gives tototo

It's also a standard SQL function
https://www.w3schools.com/sql/func_mysql_repeat.asp

Best regards,

Simon

Hello all, just another little QoL suggestion!

 

There have been a few occasions recently where I've been adding some Report Text to a Rendered output and have needed to reference the current date. However, when building a quick formula to do this, I've first needed to add a dummy field within a Text Input tool so that the Formula tool doesn't error due to no incoming connection.

 

DataNath_0-1668162075491.png

DataNath_2-1668162214534.png

DataNath_1-1668162090376.png

 

I know I can create a branch off from the main dataset and just use that, but for something simple like this, I find it cleaner to isolate and generate it in this way and so it'd be great if - for situations like this - the Formula tool's input anchor was optional (obviously only when using it to create new fields).

 

There are likely many other examples where you may want to build a simple workflow (or branch of one), starting with a quick field generated within the Formula tool itself. However, just thought I'd raise this with a scenario I've encountered a couple of times recently.

 

Cheers!

Hi, I was looking for this but couldn't find a similar idea, so I post a new one. If someone knows about a similar idea, please ask the moderators to mer

 

CountChars(<String>, <char to count>,<case sensitive>)

 

Where <char to count> and <case sensitive> are optional parameters.

If <char to count> is not provided, the funtion will return the total character count within the <String>.

If <char to count> is provided, it'll return the number of ocurrences of that character within the <String>.

 

PS: For those tempted to suggest a workaround, I've been using REGEX_CountMatches() for this. Actually, the focus is to simplify user's experience and workflow performance providing a native function, instead of using REGEX which it's very demmanding on resources.

Ever tried to copy a field rename from one select tool to another, or from one summarize tool from another.

 

Have you noticed that it doesn't work?

 

I think it should. 🙂

 

i.e., if you click on the rename box ("Total") and enter ctrl-c, when you enter ctrl-v in the other tool, it pastes this:

Field2 Sum Total

not just the name "Total"

 

Instead of just the renamed field "Category", the select tool pastes this:

True Field1 String 1 Category

 

SummarizeRename.png

SelectRename.png

Hey all,

 

The join tool currently does not allow case-insensitive joins, but the find/replace tool does.    Additionally- even if both sides are identical, the join tool will not join "Sean's house" to "Sean's house" because of the non-letter character in the middle.    Finally - if one side is a string(2), and the other is a vString(200) - even if you have a single identical character on both sides you get uncertain outcomes unless you force the type

 

Please could you consider amending the join tool to include 3 new options or capabilities:

- Case insensitive join

- Allow full Unicode character set in join

- Full match across text types (irrespective of string size) - this would allow a string(2) value to match to a string(100) value as long as the string(100) value only has the same 2 characters in it as the string(2) value

 

That would remove a load of work from every text-join that's being done on every canvas we do.

 

Thank you 

Sean

 

 

Please consider implementing a consistent case-sensitive option for all tools and functions.

 

To compare string values, including case-sensitivity:   This post had a good description of the challenge, but the post has been archived:

   https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Discussions/IF-equation-ignoring-case-BUG/m-p/4170...

   For all the time I've used Alteryx, I thought that IF "test" = "TEST" would evaluate to false. Today I realised that isn't the case and I was surprised. I'm very surprised that "equals" performs like it does.

 

A few existing Ideas request case-sensitivity for individual tools:

   Case insensitive option while joining two data sets
   https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Desktop-Ideas/Case-insensitive-option-while-joinin...

 

   Unique tool enhancement - deal with case sensitive data
   https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Desktop-Ideas/Unique-tool-enhancement-deal-with-ca...

 

 

This new Idea requests system-wide consideration for case-sensitivity, for all tools and functions.

 

Current state:

 

These tools and functions are case-sensitive:

  • Tool: Join
  • Tool: Tile
  • Function: FindString
  • Functions: MD5_ASCII, MD5_UNICODE, MD5_UTF8

These tools and functions are NOT case-sensitive:

  • Tool: Unique
  • Function: CompareDictionary

These tools and functions can be either case-sensitive or NOT case-sensitive, depending on the options used:

  • Function: Contains
  • Function: EndsWith
  • Function: StartsWith
  • Functions: REGEX_Match, REGEX_Replace, REGEX_CountMatches

Current Challenges:

   How do we easily identify Lower Case, Upper Case, Mixed Case?

   How do we easily compare strings for equality, using case sensitivity?

 

Request:

   Ensure all tools and functions include an option to ignore or consider Case

   Create new functions for IsUpperCase, IsLowerCase, IsMixedCase

   Create a new function for IsEqual, with an option to ignore or consider Case

 

See attached workflow, which

  • uses REGEX_Match to create 3 new fields: IsUpperCase, IsLowerCase, IsMixedCase
  • creates a field [Flag: Original value IsEqual, case-sensitive], to compare strings for equality, using case sensitivity

 

Trying to solve some use cases, I realized that I had to simulate the factorial behaviour.

Having a factorial formula can make this process easier.

Thanks!

Working in the accounting department, this has come up too many times now to ignore! 

 

Would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see a new formula available in the DateTime formula suite that mimics the function of the EOMONTH() formula when working with dates in Excel. 


The beauty of the EOMONTH() formula in Excel is that I can just give it a date, and then tell it how many months in the future or past I would like it to add/subtract... Alternatively, in Alteryx, this can require 2 or 3 nested DateTime functions to arrive at the same answer. 


Example: To find the end of the month 2 months in the future from today's date, I would use the following formula...

Excel = EOMONTH(Today(),2)

Alteryx = DateTimeAdd(DateTimeAdd(DateTimeTrim(DateTimeToday(),"month"),3,"months"),-1,"days")

 

Seems much more complicated than it needs to be in Alteryx, and easy to get lost in the nested formulas & non-intuitive adding/subtracting of months/days! I can see a new formula (something like DateTimeEOMonth?) being structured as follows in Alteryx: DateTimeEOMonth([Field],increment)

 

Please consider! Our accounting department thanks you heartily in advance... 🙂

 

Cheers,

NJ

Imagine the scenario where you have an input that has new columns everyday, like the one that can be seem above. But with millions of rows. And you need to build the Total column. This cannot be achieved with the formula tool, because the columns of the input are dynamic. 

 

Client202201012022010220220103202201042022010520220106202201072022010820220109Total
00000013562234545428273216147599775628

...

 

The default way that i use and see people using to solve this type of problem is transposing the data/summarizing/joining back the data. I tested this with the Enable Performance Profiling for 10 million rows (workflow attached), and as expected, when you transpose/summarize/join back a large volume of rows, you spend too much computing power. For this test, at least 5x more time than by just using the formula tool (workflow attached):

 

Felipe_Ribeir0_0-1672176440386.png

 

So, what i propose here is:

 

1) That the Multi-Field formula could be able to evaluate a set of columns dynamically and generate just one new column (the sum of the evaluated columns, the concatenation of it...).

 

Example of Designer Discussion that would be benefit from ithttps://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Discussions/Transposing-Filtering-and-Summarizing-...

 

2) That the Multi-Field formula could be able to reference column-1, column-2, column+1, column+2, like the Multi-Row formula is.

 

Example of Designer Discussion that would benefit from it: https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Discussions/Copy-Field-and-create-two-mor-fields-w...

 

Thanks.

 

I find the myself often needing to create unique IDs for a given category. Currently I end up using the multi row tool and leveraging the "group by" option. Enabling the record ID tool to create a unique count by grouping on distinct categories in an underlying data set would unlock an new level of grouping that would consolidate record keeping functionality in a single tool.

Two very useful functions

According to https://www.w3schools.com/sql/func_mysql_least.asp

The LEAST() function returns the smallest value of the list of arguments.

example : SELECT LEAST("w3Schools.com", "microsoft.com", "apple.com");

returns "apple.com"

 

GREATEST works exactly the same but returns the greatest value of the list of argument

 

As of today, Alteryx proposes max and min to deal with that, but it only works with number and , I think, it's an ambiguous syntax : Max and Min works both as an aggregation function and as a row function. I love to separate these two notions.

 

Having a more standard means also more interoperability.

 

On a related topic, the coalesce function is proposed here : https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Ideas/Coalesce-function/idi-p/841014

 

 

Best regards,

 

Simon

Similar to how the Join tool allows to "Select all Left" or "Select all Right" I'd like to see the Append Fields tool have an option to select all source or select all target. Same for deselect. 

Hi,

I'm not finding it anywhere as a current option, but my company uses branded PowerPoint slides using our logo, these slides are in 16.:9 (widescreen) for slide size, but Alteryx won't output to that size even if I choose custom for page size & have Widescreen selected as an option. Could there be an Advanced Options button added that would allow users more output choices, like choosing the 16:9 ratio size output? Without it, I'm having to output the largest map I can create (13 x 9.75 in Report Map tool) and then stretch/shrink to get it to fit the 16:9 slide...for every single map/slide (currently making 40 maps at once).

 

Is there a work around to accomplish my goal currently? And if not, could the option be added to the Render tool? Thank you!

Top Liked Authors