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

Hello all,

We all know for sure that != is the Alteryx operator for inequality. However, I suggest the implementation of <> as an other operator for inequality. Why ?

<> is a very common operator in most languages/tools such as SQL, Qlik or Tableau. It's by far more intuitive than != and it will help interoperability and copy/paste of expression between tools or from/to in-database mode to/from in-memory mode.

Best regards,

Simon

In the tools that embed the "Rename" option (Select, Append Fields, Join, Join Multiple), copying the new name will copy all the information of the field configuration : tick/untick, original field name, type, size, new name and description.

 

Renaming the field "Rename_Field"Renaming the field "Rename_Field"

 

 

Capture2.PNG

 

In my opinion, it should copy only the new name. This would be useful, especially because when you change the name of a field, it isn't automatically changed in subsequent tools, so copying it to replace it in those tools is faster than retyping it every time.

Sometimes I want to set up a filter to compare the values in two fields in my data set. The basic filter option would be much more powerful and configuration would be quicker if this option allowed this.

 

For example, currently I must use a custom filter to check if Field1 and Field2 are equal:

Kenda_0-1685475507231.png

 

 

I would love to have the option to either use a static value in the basic filter (as you can now) or select a field name from a dropdown:

Kenda_1-1685475605251.png

 

There is no tool that exists that outputs all records that are duplicates (those sharing the selected values with at least one other record) and also outputs the records that are not duplicates (those not sharing the selected values with at least one other record).

 

The Unique Tool is not sufficient.  It only provides the first record of a unique duplicate group along with any non-duplicates and then provides a secondary output that only contains the additional records of a duplicate group.  Sometimes you only care about the duplicates and want to quickly see what differs between the unique groups.

 

For example, if there are 4 records with the City of Austin and I am looking for duplicates on City I want to see all 4 records with Austin in the output so I can quickly compare additional fields to see what might differ, or if they are all indeed truly duplicates.

Formula Tool --> Functions --> Operators list

 

The operator titles for the two comment functions are too similar, the difference cannot be determined unless checking the hover text.

Can the title for /* Comment */ be adjusted to make it more clear that it is for block or multi-line usage?

I didn't understand the difference until I saw this post on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7165816592063266817/

/* Comment */ --> /* Block Comment */   |   /* Multi-line Comment */

 

2024-02-21 08_18_04-Alteryx Designer x64 - _New Workflow1.png

  

2024-02-21 08_18_11-Alteryx Designer x64 - _New Workflow1.png

Currently there is a function in Alteryx called FindString() that finds the first occurrence of your target in a string. However, sometimes we want to find the nth occurrence of our target in a string. 

 

FindString("Hello World", "o")  returns 4 as the 0-indexed count of characters until the first "o" in the string. But what if we want to find the location of the second "o" in the text? This gets messy with nested find statements and unworkable beyond looking for the second or third instance of something. 

 

I would like a function added such that 

 

FindNth("Hello World", "o", 2) Would return 7 as the 0-indexed count of characters until the second instance of "o" in my string. 

A very useful and common function
https://www.w3schools.com/sql/func_sqlserver_coalesce.asp

Return the first non-null value in a list:

COALESCE(NULL, NULL, NULL, 'W3Schools.com', NULL, 'Example.com')
returns 'W3Schools.com'

It exits in SQL, Qlik Sense, etc...

Best regards,

Simon

Good morning!

 

This may be a very simple thing, but would it be possible to add a DateTimeQuarter() function? We have DateTime Second, Minute, Day, Month, and Year, and being able to have an easy formula for the quarter as well would be incredibly convenient. 

 

Thanks,

Kat

Hello!

I am just making a quick suggestion, specifically for the Formula tool within Alteryx.

 

Often when I am working on a larger workflow - I will end up optimising the workflow towards the end. I typically end up removing unnecessary tools, fields, and rethinking my logic.

 

Much of this optimisation, is also merging formula tools where possible. For instance, if I have 3 formulas - its much cleaner (and I would suspect faster) to have these all within one tool. For instance, a scaled down example:

TheOC_0-1638886556192.png

 

to this:

TheOC_1-1638886598494.png

 

This requires a lot of copy and paste - especially if the formulas/column names are long - this can be two copy and pastes, and waiting for tools to load between them, per formula (i do appreciate, this sounds an incredibly small problem to have, but on what I would consider a large workflow, a tool loading can actually take a couple of seconds - and this could burn some time. Additionally, there's always potential problems when it comes to copy/pasting or retyping with errors).

 

My proposed solution to this, is the ability to drag a formula onto another - very similar to dragging a tool onto a connection. This integration would look like:

TheOC_4-1638886826166.png

 

Drag to the first formula:

 

TheOC_5-1638886837420.png

 

 

Release:

 

TheOC_6-1638886865299.png

 

Formula has been appended to the formula tool:

TheOC_7-1638886879753.png

 

 

I think this will help people visually optimise their workflows!

Cheers,
TheOC

 

 

Toggle individual expressions on/off in the formula tool.   

On more than a few occasions I have a number of expressions in a single formula tool and find myself wanting to turn off a few or many, but not all. 

It'd be great if there was a checkbox to activate/inactivate : on/off : include/exclude : select/deselect (whatever language you like for the concept) an individual expression.

 

Simple as a text box.  with maybe a 'select/deselect  ALL box available incase you want to turn most off then only select a single one? 

 

Hello all,

 

I'm currently learning Pythin language and there is this cool feature : you can multiply a string

image.png

 

 

 

Pretty cool, no? I would like the same syntax to work for Tableau.

 

Best regards,

 

Simon

Add Unicode category to the cleansing tool

Similar to this idea, I think it would be really helpful to be able to search for fields in the dropdowns when using the Sort tool. Having to scroll through all of the possible field names can be a chore if you have 50+

 

Kenda_1-1663782436960.png

 

The Formula Tool does a good job of autocompleting expressions (for example an open square bracket will show you variables in your dataset), as well as syntax highlighting (coloring variables, keywords, strings, etc).

 

PhilipMannering_0-1633166313984.png

PhilipMannering_1-1633166410914.png

 

 

 

I propose having this feature available in all tools that use the expression editor, particularly common ones such as the Multi-Row Formula Tool and the Multi-Field Formula Tool.

 

This parity across tools would provide a more consistent experience for the user and increase one's productivity using these tools. It's incredibly helpful for beginners and seasoned Alteryx users alike and should be available wherever possible.

This is a pretty quick suggestion:

 

I think that there are a lot of formulas that would be easier to write and maintain if a SQL-style BETWEEN operator was available.

 

Essentially, you could turn this:

ToNumber([Postal Code]) > 1000 AND ToNumber([Postal Code]) < 2500

 

Into this:

ToNumber([Postal Code]) BETWEEN 1000 AND 2500


That way, if you later had to modify the ToNumber([Postal Code]), you only have to maintain it once.  Its both aesthetically pleasing and more maintainable!

Problem: In certain workflows, it becomes necessary to arrange columns in a specific order for the output. While achieving the desired order for a fixed number of columns is feasible using the select tool, difficulties arise when dealing with dynamic outputs that introduce new columns during each workflow run.

 

Example: Consider the following scenario: the INPUT data for the select tool includes a set of Question/Answer columns. However, with every run of the workflow, new columns of this type are introduced. The challenge is to ensure that Question N and Answer N columns are grouped together in the OUTPUT dynamically. Unfortunately, this task is not easily accomplished using the current capabilities of Alteryx.

 

INPUT:

CompanyQuestion 1Question 2Question 3Answer 1Answer 2Answer 3
ContosoBlahBlehBlyNYN

 

DESIRED OUTPUT:

CompanyQuestion 1Answer 1Question 2Answer 2Question 3Answer 3
ContosoBlahNBlehYBlyN

 

 

With Python/Pandas, this problem can be easily resolved by assigning index values to each column and then sorting the columns based on the assigned index:

reorder_py.png

 

 

So, based on the Python solution, if Alteryx could do the same, it would be great. I personally think that if the Dynamic Rename tool could held the Index Info, and the select tool could also held the Sort option, this would work.

Workflow.png

 

Dynamic Rename: Already can hold Description info, could hold Index Info.

dynamic_rename.png

 

Select tool: Could sort by index and hold this info when the workflow is saved.

Index.png

 

Hope this all make sense.

 

Thanks.

In the RecordID tool,  provide additional options for the creation of the ID, specifically allow for the ID to 'Intervals'. 

For example, Record ID every 10, meaning instead of creating an ID of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 .... you could create an interval of your choosing, the most obvious would by 10 or 100  thus your ID's would then be 10, 20, 30, 40 ....  or  100, 200, 300, 400, 500 ... etc. 

 

 

I surprisingly couldn't find this anywhere else as I know it's been discussed in person on many occasions.

 

Basically the Formula tool needs to be smarter in many ways, but this particular post focuses on the Data Type component.

 

The formula tool, should not always default to V_String as the data type when entering data or a formula into the formula tool, it should look at the data type and estimate the most likely option.

 

I know there are times where the logical type might not be consistent in all fields, but the Data Preview and the Function of the formula should be used to determine the most likely option.

 

E.G. If I type a number or a date directly into the formula tool, then Alteryx should be smart enough to change the data type from the standard V_String to Int, Double or date.

 

This is an extension to the ideas posted here:

https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Ideas/Tab-from-Select-Column-to-Enter-Expression-H...

https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Ideas/Formula-tool-data-type-should-be-prominent/i...

https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Ideas/Alteryx-11-formula-tool-default-data-type/id...

Hello,

 

Enhancement of 'IN' functionality (ie. in Filter tool), so using range instead of citing particular values for example:
instead [ID] IN (1,2,3,52,53,54,100,101,102) something like that [ID] IN (1-3,52-54,100-102).

Hello All,

 

I believe there needs to be a new tool added to Alteryx. I am frequently encountering cases where I will have 0 data point feeding a workflow stream that causes my workflows to fail. Because of this, I am having to put in fail safes to keep this from happening.

 

There should be a tool that if there is no records that are passing into it, anything after that tool will not fail.

 

For an example, within a workflow I am using a dynamic input that will pull a dynamic file. The file is not always there and the workflow should be able to run if that file is there or not. If the dynamic tool and other tools would process 0 records without failing this would also solve the issue. 

 

I would be nice to have a tool that will  block off the work stream if there are 0 records passing through the tool. 

Top Liked Authors