Be sure to review our Idea Submission Guidelines for more information!
Submission GuidelinesHello,
After used the new "Image Recognition Tool" a few days, I think you could improve it :
> by adding the dimensional constraints in front of each of the pre-trained models,
> by adding a true tool to divide the training data correctly (in order to have an equivalent number of images for each of the labels)
> at least, allow the tool to use black & white images (I wanted to test it on the MNIST, but the tool tells me that it necessarily needs RGB images) ?
Question : do you in the future allow the user to choose between CPU or GPU usage ?
In any case, thank you again for this new tool, it is certainly perfectible, but very simple to use, and I sincerely think that it will allow a greater number of people to understand the many use cases made possible thanks to image recognition.
Thank you again
Kévin VANCAPPEL (France ;-))
Thank you again.
Kévin VANCAPPEL
Hi everyone! I have been trying to find a way to do this without creating a new idea, but I have decided to make it an official 'Idea' to see if there is anyone else that might appreciate a feature like this (or has found there own way to do it!)
Do your workflows look like this...
but you wish they could look like this?
Well... they can with your help!
Okay, I might be crazy...but its worth a shot.
While I understand this is an extremely niche issue, in my experience, it can become very difficult to trace the data through unmanaged lines in large workflows. I think it will be great to cable manage canvas lines so workflows are easier to follow. Heck, while I am already at it, I think it we should all start calling these canvas lines cables... They don't carry electricity, but they sure do carry data!
Here is an example I created in Alteryx using select tools and containers:
The idea is quite simple. I am sure a lot of Alteryx enthusiasts use containers frequently. These can also be color coded for better overview and readability of your workflows. However, while connections between tools can be named, they cannot be colored.
Therefore, this idea is very simple. Adding an option to color these connections. This would allow for even more readability of workflows. Especially if a workflow contains multiple separate streams of data, this could help to navigate and keep track of how and where data is flowing.
Similar to the setting that you have in many individual tools (join, append, select, et al) where you can go to options and choose to "forget missing fields" it would be nice where you could go to options for the entire flow and "forget missing fields".
This would remove the headache that you have with large flows where you make a change(s) then have to go back through each and every tool to "forget" within that tool. Yes you could still do it individually, but if you chose, you could also do it universally for the entire flow all at once to all the 'missing fields'.
Currently if I have a connection between two tools as per the example below:
I can drag and drop a new tool on the connection between these tools to add it in:
And designer updates the connections nicely, however if I select multiple tools and try and collectively drop them inbetween, on a connection then it won't allow me to do this, and will move the connection out of the way so it doesn't cause an overlap.
Therefore as a QoL improvement it would be great if there was a multi-drop option on connections between tools.
I am working with complex workflows which use multiple files as input, located on network drives. Input tools are Input Data, Directory, Wildcard Input, Wildcard XLSX Input (from CReW macros).
Regularly, I experience very slow Designer when working on the workflows, and slow progress when running the tools mentioned above, especially when working from home. Switching off Auto Configure did not really help because I the column list sometimes does not converge even after pressing F5 multiple times, and when actively working on workflows, I have to press F5 all the time...
In order to speed up both working on workflows and running the workflows, I would like to propose a function "Cache all File Inputs" which loads and caches all file inputs at once. To achieve this state, I now have Cache and Run workflow once per every file input.
The idea is to have a Run option, where the workflow runs everything up to the selected tool (Like the Cache functionality does).
You select the tool, hit Run Up and the workflows executes everything "before" the selected tool.
That'll make developing much easier, specially when dealing with big workflows and constant changing data.
Hello all,
As of today, Alteryx proposes the Intelligence Suite with amazing tools never seen in a data tool, even OCR, image analysis etc.. https://www.alteryx.com/fr/products/intelligence-suite
But... these wonderful tools are part of a paid add-on. And this is what is problematic :
-Alteryx is already an expensive tool. With a huge value but honestly expensive.
-The tools in Intelligence Suite are not common in data tools because you won't use often. And paying for tools you use once or twice in a month is not easy to justify.
So, I suggest to incorpore Intelligence Suite in the core product. The Alteryx users benefit is evident so let's see the Alteryx benefits :
-more user satisfaction
-a simpler catalog
-adding a lot of value to Designer, with the ability to communicate widely on the topic.
-almost no cost : most costumers won't buy the Intelligence Suite anyway.
Best regards,
Simon
Currently it's not possible to "switch off" interface tools in the same was as we can with the other tools. This limits the functionality especially within chained apps. If we could switch these tools off it would be much easier for us to tailor the experience by allowing selections to be activated by logic, rather than simply the data therein.
Please Alteryx Gods. I beseech thee!
*lights candles*
The JOIN tool could use some love. Let's consider merging the JOIN and UNION functions into a single tool. Instead of strictly L, J, and R outputs, we could have an option to allow for all standard SQL joins:
Being able to JOIN on case-insensitive values is a big bonus (resisted urge to BOLD and change font size).
Being able to JOIN on date-range is often requested.
Being able to JOIN on numeric-range is often requested.
If we are combining tools, getting UNIQUE on L or R (or both) inputs would also save time. Most JOIN errors are because the incoming (R) data contains duplicates by KEY.
cheers,
Mark
Hi @NicoleJ
A very useful and common function
https://www.w3schools.com/sql/func_sqlserver_coalesce.asp
Return the first non-null value in a list:
To allow users to pull data from Power BI, eg. datasets and usage data, to allow it to be manipulated in Alteryx.
Referencing the previous idea: Inputs/Output should have the option to read/write a compressed file (ZIP or GZIP)
This idea has been implemented for inputting .zip files. However, we still need to use the run command workaround for outputs. It's very common for many users to want to output their .csv, .xlsx, .pdf to a .zip. The functionality would also need to extend to Gallery.
See the following links for people that are looking for this type of functionality:
https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Discussions/Output-files-to-ZIP/td-p/163502
https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Discussions/Zip-files/td-p/151456
Feel free to merge this idea with the previous one for continuity.
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:
I love this tool, but think it would be improved by including an option to create a column per delimiting character. This could be added in the number of columns selector box. In the case where 1 row has more delimiters than another, null columns can be created. Without this option you have to Regex count the delimiters, select the max and then embed the Text to columns tools in a macro and then pass the max columns as a param. Would be nice to resolve all this in the main tool.
Thanks, nick
Hello,
We use the pre-sql statement of the input to set some parameters of connections. Sadly, we cannot do that in a in-db workflow. This would be a total game-changing feature for us.
Best Regards,
Simon
I constantly find my using pre and post SQL Commands in the Output tool to run SQL when I don't actually have any data to output.
One example is when I load data into S3 and want to load it into Redshift. I have SQL code to run but no data to Output - I end up running a dummy row into a temp table.
So can we have an SQL tool that simply acts the same as a Pre-SQL command without the associated data output. Once the command is run we should be able to continue the workflow, so the tool should have an option input and output, like the Run Command tool.
From Wikipedia :
In a database, a view is the result set of a stored query on the data, which the database users can query just as they would in a persistent database collection object. This pre-established query command is kept in the database dictionary. Unlike ordinary base tables in a relational database, a view does not form part of the physical schema: as a result set, it is a virtual table computed or collated dynamically from data in the database when access to that view is requested. Changes applied to the data in a relevant underlying table are reflected in the data shown in subsequent invocations of the view. In some NoSQL databases, views are the only way to query data. Views can provide advantages over tables: Views can represent a subset of the data contained in a table. Consequently, a view can limit the degree of exposure of the underlying tables to the outer world: a given user may have permission to query the view, while denied access to the rest of the base table. Views can join and simplify multiple tables into a single virtual table. Views can act as aggregated tables, where the database engine aggregates data (sum, average, etc.) and presents the calculated results as part of the data. Views can hide the complexity of data. For example, a view could appear as Sales2000 or Sales2001, transparently partitioning the actual underlying table. Views take very little space to store; the database contains only the definition of a view, not a copy of all the data that it presents. Depending on the SQL engine used, views can provide extra security.
I would like to create a view instead of a table.
Idea: Allow the user to set the data type including character field width in the Text Input tool.
The Text Input tool currently auto-senses the correct type and width of the field in a Text Input tool. However, this sometimes restricts the usage of the data downline.
Examples:
1 - I often run into the situation where I've copied some data from a browse tool and then pasted that as an input to a new workflow. Then I'll turn that workflow into a macro. But then I run into an issue where the data that comes into the macro is larger than the original width in the Text Input tool. This causes problems.
2 - The tool senses that a field containing zip codes should be numeric and then converts the data. This corrupts the data and makes me insert a Select/Formula tool combo to pad the zeros to the left.
A common problem with the R tool is that it outputs "False Errors" like the following: "The R.exe exit code (4294967295) indicted an error"
I call this a false error because data passes out of the R script the same as if there were no error. As such, this error can generally be ignored. In my use case, however, my R tool is embedded within an iterative macro, and the error causes the iterator to stop running.
I was able to create a workaround by moving the R tool to a separate workflow and calling it from the CReW runner macro within my iterator, effectively suppressing the error message, but this solution is a bit clumsy, requires unnecessary read/writes, and uses nonstandard macros.
I propose the solution suggested by @mbarone (https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Discussions/Boosted-Model-Error/td-p/5509) to only generate an error when the R return code is 1, indicating a true error, and to either ignore these false errors or pass them as warnings. This will allow R scripts and R-based tools to be embedded within iterative macros without breaking.
When using the output data tool, it would save me and my cluttered organizational skills a lot of effort if the writing workflow was saved as part of the yxdb metadata.
I've often had to search to find a workflow which created the yxdb. I tend to use naming conventions to help me, but it would be easier if the file and or path was easily found.
cheers,
mark
User | Likes Count |
---|---|
115 | |
14 | |
7 | |
7 | |
7 |