This post is the start of a small series around some of the functionality coming in the Alteryx Abacus 1.4 release. While this post doesn’t directly use anything in the add-in, understanding the sequence of evaluation within an Alteryx expression is critical when working with variables (one of the big new features in the next release). It specifically looks at how Alteryx evaluates an expression. While in general, you don’t care, once your expression has ‘side-effects‘, it can start to really matter.
As always, as I don’t work for Alteryx this is based on my poking and prodding and seeing what happens, so no guarantees it is correct!
LOGS
In this post, I’m going to use a special function – LOG this allows me to get a line written to a file to tell me what was evaluated. This is a new function in Abacus 1.4. It’s stupidly useful for debugging complicated expressions. The syntax is:
LOG(<ReturnValue>, <FileName>, [Message])
Back to School
Let’s go back to basics to start with some simple maths. Maths defines an order of operation. I’m English so I learnt it as ‘BODMAS’:
- Brackets (Parenthesis in American)
- Order (Exponents in American)
- Division / Multiplication
- Addition / Subtraction
If there is an ambiguity, then left-to-right is used (e.g. 3-4-5 is evaluated as (3-4)-5 i.e. -6). Let’s do some simple tests in Alteryx.
Unsurprisingly, this produces the correct result of -6. Now, another 10-3+2 should be treated as (10-3)+2 i.e. 9:
In Alteryx’s case, Order is not an operator, it’s a function so onto…
Programming Languages
Programming languages have way more operators. The table below summarises the order assuming Alteryx follows this standard:
- Brackets, Function calls
- Unary operators –
!,-,+ - Division / Multiplication
- Addition / Subtraction
- Comparisons: less-than and greater-than (“,
=) - Comparisons: equal and not equal (
==,!=) - Logical AND,
&& - Logical OR,
||
Please note some of the common programming operators (e.g. %) are function calls in Alteryx expressions (e.g. MOD). Consider a simple expression: 4 + 9 > 12. This will be evaluated as (4 + 9) > 12:
Alteryx represents TRUE as -1 if shown as a number
Now onto at a bit of a more weird and wonderful example – 3 < 2 != 3 < 5. This evaluates to (3 < 2) != (3 2-22. Evaluate5 – 4==>13. Evaluate-2 > 2==>FALSE(or0)0
4. EvaluateTRUE (or -1)
Functions
Let’s think about another quick example. What about MOD(7 + 4, 2) + -MOD(7, 4)? Well following the normal logic, we would evaluate each of the MOD functions and then evaluate the addition. In other words:
- Evaluate
7 + 4==>11 - Evaluate
MOD(11, 2)==>1 - Evaluate
MOD(7, 4)==>3 - Evaluate Unary Minus ==>
-3 - Evaluate
1 - 3==>-2
Short Circuits
So far, we have no choice about what we have had to do. To perform most operations, all inputs need to be known. Now think about logical AND and OR. Well for AND, we have the logic table:
| Left | Right | Output |
|---|---|---|
| FALSE | FALSE | FALSE |
| FALSE | TRUE | FALSE |
| TRUE | FALSE | FALSE |
| TRUE | TRUE | TRUE |
If we evaluate Left to be FALSE, we can stop as we know the result is FALSE and not bother with evaluating Right. Likewise, if we look at OR:
| Left | Right | Output |
|---|---|---|
| FALSE | FALSE | FALSE |
| FALSE | TRUE | TRUE |
| TRUE | FALSE | TRUE |
| TRUE | TRUE | TRUE |
In this case, if we evaluate Left to be TRUE, we can stop as we know the result is TRUE and not bother with evaluating Right.
This is called Short Circuit Evaluation. This is hugely important for conditions where evaluating the second part is only possible if the first condition is TRUE. Imagine [X] != 0 AND 27 / [X] > 17, the second part of the expression will evaluate to an error if X is equal to 0. If there was no short-circuiting then this expression would be much harder to write. Take a look and see what happens in Alteryx:
LOG(1, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "Left") AND LOG(1, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "Right")
As expected, both sides must be executed, so log output looks like:
Left
Right
So, now let’s try:
LOG(0, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "Left") AND LOG(1, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "Right")
The log output this time looks like:
Left
Alteryx has short-circuited the evaluation and not bothered to work out the value of the second input. For sake of completeness, the example below shows the same behaviour in an OR case:
LOG(1, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "Left") OR LOG(1, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "Right")
As expected, the log looks like this:
Left
Alteryx’s engine is efficient – that shouldn’t surprise anyone.
IF and IIF
Now, think about functions (or operators as well I guess). In order to evaluate the function, you need to first evaluate all the inputs to it. However, the same kind of short-circuiting logic can be applied to an IF or IIF statement as we saw with AND and OR. You first evaluate the condition, and then can decide whether to execute true or false:
IF LOG(1, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "Condition") THEN
LOG(100, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "True")
ELSE
LOG(-100, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "False")
ENDIF
Looking at the log, Alteryx evaluates the condition gets a TRUE value and then evaluates the first block.
Condition
True
Let’s look at a FALSE scenario in an IIF function:
IIF(LOG(0, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "Condition"),
LOG(100, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "True"),
LOG(-100, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "False")
)
As expected, just the FALSE block is evaluated.
Condition
False
As far as I have ever been able to tell, there is no evaluation difference between IF and IIF. You can use the one you prefer the look of (I vary between the two depending on the complexity of the expression).
SWITCH
The SWITCH statement could easily have the same short-circuiting approach. We could first evaluate the Value input, then evaluate each Case1, Case2, …, CaseN in turn until we either find one which matches or run out of cases. We can then evaluate the appropriate Result or Default expression. So, let’s look at a simple example:
SWITCH(LOG("A", "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "Value"),
LOG(-1, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "Default"),
LOG("A", "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "Case1"),
LOG(1, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "Result1"),
LOG("B", "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "Case2"),
LOG(2, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "Result2")
)
The log output looks like:
Value Default Case1 Result1 Case2 Result2 ```` Even though logically there is no way to get to other results all are evaluated. If you need short-circuiting, then you will need to use an `IF...ELSEIF...ENDIF` structure. You can always make the formula have 2 steps - first evaluate the `Value` then in the second step have the `IF` expression needed. # IFNULL So, this is an interesting one. `IFNULL` is an [XML Macro Function](https://jdunkerley.co.uk/2016/08/13/beyond-alteryx-macros-part-2-how-to-create-an-xml-macro-function/) built into the Abacus library (it's been there since the earliest versions). Its underlying expression is: ```none IIF(ISNULL(P1),P2,P1)
Let’s consider the case where P1 is NULL:
IIF(ISNULL(LOG(NULL(), "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "IIF_Cond")),
LOG("NotNull", "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "IIF_NotNull"),
LOG(NULL(), "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "IIF_Null"))
versus
IFNULL(LOG(NULL(), "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "IFNULL_P1"),
LOG("NotNull", "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "IFNULL_P2"))
Looking at the IIF statement, it evaluates the Cond and the NotNull expressions. Unsurprisingly, IFNULL evaluates both P1 and P2. Now consider the case where P1 is not null, e.g.:
IIF(ISNULL(LOG("Something", "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "IIF_Cond")),
LOG("NotNull", "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "IIF_NotNull"),
LOG("Something", "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "IIF_Null"))
versus
IFNULL(LOG("Something", "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "IFNULL_P1"),
LOG("NotNull", "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "IFNULL_P2"))
The IIF statement, it evaluates the Cond and the Null expressions. However, the IFNULL continues and evaluates both P1 and P2. This can be an advantage or a disadvantage. Imagine a case where computing P1 was complicated – then IFNULL avoids it being computed twice. This can clearly be a big advantage in this scenario. However, in another case, if you have a function which reads a value and if null updates the value (this is the variable functionality in Abacus) then you want P2 to only be executed if P1 is null.
This was a surprise for me when I first noticed this behaviour as I had imagined XML Macro functions worked as a substitution straight into the expression (just making it easier to write), but this behaviour allows for some performance wins (and some losses).
A Brief Mention of the Parse Phase
Just a quick note on how expressions are pared within Alteryx. If you try some of these examples, you will find the expression is evaluated over and over. Alteryx runs a parse phase where it evaluates the expression. It checks syntax and makes sure all is well. If you have a custom function, you will be passed 0 or an empty string where you would get a data field. This allows Alteryx to check syntax and understand the structure of the expression. The code below shows the output of the following expression:
IIF(LOG([Alpha], "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "Condition") = "A",
LOG(100, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "True"),
LOG(-100, "C:\Temp\Logic.log", "False")
)
With an input of:
| Alpha |
|---|
| A |
| B |
When you work with the formula editor the expression is evaluated on first lost, then on every keypress so you end up with a log file full of entries. The sequence below shows what happens when the editor is first loaded:
True False Condition True False Condition Condition True
This same sequence happens on every keypress in the editor as it re-evaluates the expression. The first 6 lines are the parse phase being run twice (not sure why it runs it twice), followed by the last 2 evaluating a single test record. If we now run the workflow, we get the following logs:
True False Condition Condition True Condition False
In this case, you can see the parse is run (first three lines). Then each record is evaluated in turn (2 lines for each record). When I first tried the variable functions, the parse caused me a little issue as got an extra call I didn’t expect.
Summing Up
Hopefully, some of the odd and outputs from expressions might make some sense now. As functions get more complicated (and time to execute increases), thinking about how an expression is evaluated becomes more and more important.
