Merge Node with Multiple Inputs [GOT RELEASED]

Feature Requests (done)
1

REgarding Merge Node, provision to accept data from “multiple nodes” (and not just two) to merge the data into single
So the Feature Request is to ensure have the “Merge Node” to to be enhanced to accept multiple inputs

The idea is:

The idea is as per the question below
(https://community.n8n.io/t/merge-node-can-it-accept-more-than-2-inputs/10417)
Currently, the workaround is to nest multiple Merge nodes. But this get complicated , for instance for a 8 input set, you need to have 4 + 2 + 1 nesting (i.e 7 merge nodes) which could have dealt with a single merge node.

My use case:

In my use-case, we get tickets and inputs from various systems before a workflow starts. Also during IF conditionals, there could multiple scenario which needs to be merged into single report.

2

It could be pretty useful but also probably pretty confusing about modes, anyway @getk don’t forget to vote request :slight_smile:

3

Agree. May be a separate “Merge Node” (eg Multi-Merge Node) may be better rather than modifying existing Merge Node

1 Like
4

It could be a specific node, which fires with a special rule. It has one input, but fires only when all incoming data flows are done. Once all the data came in, it executes simply combining all the data in the order it came to the node.

Don’t know if it’s possble. Currently a node is firing when any of data has come (from 1 or 2 arrows depending on the node type).

1 Like
5

Hi @artildo
The Merge node can be used to wait for all inputs to finish before it goes on. Also stopping the flow if both incoming flows didn’t result in data.
Having a Merge node with more than 2 input flows would be awesome. Needs an option to only have 3 inputs and still wait for all inputs to continue.(not waiting for the 4th with 4 inputs like the switch node)

1 Like
6

Could be just added option like how many input or something, I don’t know all modes but for some of them could be necessary to pick “special” input

7

Seems that the feature is now done: Merge integrations | Workflow automation with n8n
Thanks for the feature

8

I hope it has, but as far is I can see the merge node still only takes 2 inputs?

1 Like
9

Hi, something new on this topic ? I struggle to merge seven RSS nodes into a single one, it would be so nice to have a single merge node with multiple inputs instead of a cascade of merge nodes … thanks !
(I always mention the amazing @Jon on my questions, he is the best one).

10

was looking for that too, and was going to open a feature request for it

11

Now Switch has multiple outputs, looking for Merge to have multiple inputs too.

1 Like
12

multiple inputs in merge would avoid situations like this:
image

13

I also have a workflow that does something similar…

image
image597×746 49.7 KB

This makes me sad everytime I look at it.

6 Likes
14

Oh I’m the same I have worse also loool

1 Like
15

Heh, you should see the flow I call, “Pinball Sort”.

I’d show you, but it exceeds the 20,000 character limit here in the forums by about 73000 characters.

:flushed:

16

Feeling stuck and frustrated just by looking at those Merge flows.

17

I thought I would see if this image would post for two reasons.

A: I really don’t like this and if anyone has any other ideas on how to manage the data… I did attempt to use SET nodes, but the incoming data structure made that even worse.

2: For the giggle factor. I laugh every time I think about the fact that I need to refactor this with the new switch node. This one is using the older community switch node.

I will say, watching this run with many chunks of data is… interesting…

Screenshot 2024-03-13 at 17.43.47
Screenshot 2024-03-13 at 17.43.471920×1882 158 KB

It’s a little ridiculous.

-Russ

2 Likes
18

@russellkg
Great to see someone using that node. I am happy it is no longer needed though. :slight_smile:

I do think your flow can be made a lot simpler. As it seems you are doing pretty much the same thing for all. :innocent:

1 Like
19

Yeah, I have a couple of ideas, but haven’t had time to attempt to implement them.

-Russ

20

What are the main use cases you’d want more inputs for? So far I’ve seen

  1. Appending items
  2. Waiting for all branches to complete
  3. Combining items (i.e. some kind of SQL join)

Would be interesting to understand how important these are compared to each other, because the UX of some is easier than others.