Hi Team,
I have a use case to implement tile function in KNIME.
Here is the attached sample data which is the input and output data we have.
Can anyone from community help me to achieve desired output ?
Alteryx-Tile-Input.xlsx (70.0 KB)
Alteryx-Tile-Output.xlsx (86.4 KB)
Hi there,
Maybe the Rank node can help you find a similar outcome. However, the tile number for each row is different. But the total number of tiles is the same, as you can check with the Value Counter node. If this does not satisfy your request, try using Python or wait for a more experienced Knimer to help you.
Best,
Carlos
I am sorry but it is not working as expected. thank you for try, i will wait for other solution
See if this post helps.
i have checked this but not worked..
Hi,
it would be helpful if you could describe what exactly is not working. Maybe with an upload of your current workflow.
Andreas
Hi @mshahn02 , it probably would have been better also to explain in words what you are wanting to achieve, as otherwise everybody here who wants to help has to go find out what the Alteryx Tile tool does. You cannot assume that KNIME users will generally know Alteryx, and so it is better to ask how to do a specific described task in KNIME.
Ok, so I’ve looked at your in and out data, and briefly looked at the description of the Alteryx Tile Tool
it still isn’t totally clear what is meant to occur for your specific settings, but I’ve tried to work out what you are trying to do from your config and the above tool description:
It appears that the TILE TOOL will attempt to group your data by the ADDRESS (because this is defined as the Group By column, and then within that grouping, attempt to rank the rows by the columns defined in “Unique Values” (AVERAGE SALE) … except that the “Leave Unsorted” option has been chosen which seems to imply that the ranking will occur in EXISTING ROW ORDER, with AVERAGE SALE then only identify individual items to rank, rather than the order by which they are ranked. This is the bit I wasn’t quite certain about.
What really confuses me is this is the description of the two appended fields from the Alteryx documentation:
In your OUTPUT data, however, Tile Sequence number is always 1, and multiple rows share the same Tile Number. That doesn’t seem to match the above documentation.
From your screenshot of configuration, I would have expected each individual ADDRESS to be allocated a different tile number, and then each row within the same ADDRESS grouping would have been allocated a sequential number.
So your output data looks wrong, based on what I think the tool is trying to achieve.
Having looked at your INPUT data, it is already SORTED by ZIP CODE. I don’t know if this is important to the alteryx tool, but it is configured to leave the data in original order (I think), yet the order of the output data appears to be “random”. I cannot find any sort ordering that defines your output, so I don’t think it is possible to guarantee to exactly match your output from KNIME, but please do describe the required order of output if I just haven’t spotted what it is.
Looking again at your OUTPUT data, I would suggest that your Alteryx workflow is not doing the job you really want it to, but this is based on my best guess of what you are likely wanting to achieve. Let me explain…
It seems likely to me that you are wanting to treat all companies (possibly at different addresses) as separate groups. However, you are not grouping by Company + Address, but instead just grouping by address. This is important because your address field is blank for 49 different companies, and as such they are all being treated as the same grouping. Is that really what you want?
All that being said, it is possible to achieve the TILE NUMBERS that you have in your output, by using the Rank node, as demonstrated by @CarlosEnrique84 , but configure it as follows:
and set “advanced settings” (at the bottom)
Now for the reasons I mentioned above, I believe that your actual output data is NOT what you really want. So the above configuration is not what I would expect to use for this kind of job, but it will give you the same (in my view, wrong) output. 
If you want different output, that “tiles by individual company+address”, then you would want to include “COMPANY” in the Ranking configuration, along with address and zip, and then put AVERAGE SALE as your Rank Ordering.
Hopefully the above makes sense. I don’t like to try to second-guess intent, but as I said at the start, it is better if you can define in words what you actually want to achieve, than just rely on showing us only the input and output where we attempt to extrapolate the “rules”. Don’t get me wrong… it’s great that you have provided example data which many people fail to do, but a description of what you want should accompany it for best results. Hope that helps!
Dear All,
I hope below information would have give clear reauirement.
| in Alteryx tile tool reading and performing in this way the data. If Customer, Channel and week range and sales read as a Tile_Num and Tile_SequenceNum as 1 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Check the same way in row#2 and so Tile_Num is showing record 2 and Tile_SequenceNum 1 because sales is different. | |||||
| But when you check Row 8 and 9 , Customer, Channel, Sales and Weekrange is same then Tile_num is not changing both it is showing 7 and Tile_SequenceNum is showing 1 and 2 because record is repeating |
| Customer | Channel | Sales | WeekRange | Tile_Num | Tile_SequenceNum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Online | 104.2892114 | L4 | 1 | 1 |
| A | Online | 524.3719602 | L4 | 2 | 1 |
| A | Online | 461.551898 | L4 | 3 | 1 |
| A | Online | 460.551898 | L4 | 4 | 1 |
| A | Online | 209.0641103 | L4 | 5 | 1 |
| A | Online | 418.9042736 | L4 | 6 | 1 |
| A | Online | 107.3754233 | L4 | 7 | 1 |
| A | Online | 107.3754233 | L4 | 7 | 2 |
| A | Online | 350.3385339 | L4 | 8 | 1 |
| A | Online | 136.5396246 | L4 | 9 | 1 |
| B | Online | 704.3188968 | L4 | 1 | 1 |
| B | Online | 476.147963 | L4 | 2 | 1 |
| B | Online | 476.147963 | L4 | 2 | 2 |
| B | Online | 300.5264505 | L4 | 3 | 1 |
| B | Online | 283.7556463 | L4 | 4 | 1 |
Hi mshahn02,
In my opinion, @takbb satisfactorily answered your request and demonstrated that your output data can be obtained using the Rank node by selecting the ZIP column as the criterion 1 column, not the AVERAGE SALE column.
I think you calculated the output data using ZIP, but when you took the screenshot, you mistakenly used AVERAGE SALE.
Please verify that this theory is correct, and if so, mark takbb’s answer as the solution to the thread. It’s highly unlikely that Alteryx and KNIME would produce the same result with different columns.
Best,
Carlos
