Forum Discussion
SharePoint Excel ingestion, Dataflow Gen2 vs shortcut + notebook CU efficiency
Hi bj132175 ,
I wouldn’t assume that Shortcut + Notebook will automatically consume fewer CUs than Dataflow Gen2. It really depends on the file size/count, transformation complexity, and Spark overhead.For smaller Excel files and relatively simple Power Query transformations, I’d generally stick with Dataflow Gen2 since it’s simpler and avoids bringing Spark into the picture.
If you’re dealing with a larger number of files or more complex transformations and the data is ultimately going into a Lakehouse, then Shortcut + Notebook/PySpark can be a better fit.
If CU consumption is the deciding factor, I’d benchmark both with the same workload. Spark startup and capacity usage can make the notebook approach more expensive for smaller workloads, so there isn’t really a blanket “shortcut + notebook uses fewer CUs” rule.
Advocate IIIHi bj132175 ,
yes, Lakehouse shortcut + notebook (PySpark) is generally the more Capacity Unit-efficient approach. Multiple benchmarks show Dataflow Gen2 consistently consumes significantly more CU than code-first approaches like notebooks, in some tests, 55% to 700% more depending on data volume and transformation complexity, since Gen2 bills across Mashup, SQL, and FastCopy engines simultaneously rather than a single execution engine. For SharePoint Excel-folder ingestion specifically, shortcut + notebook avoids the Dataflow Gen2 overhead entirely and gives you more control over transformation logic, at the cost of needing PySpark skills on your team instead of a no-code interface. If your files/transformations are relatively lightweight, this gap may matter less, but at scale the notebook approach is the more CU-efficient recommended pattern.