Share feedback directly with Fabric product managers, participate in targeted research studies and influence the Fabric roadmap.
Sign up nowGet Fabric certified for FREE! Don't miss your chance! Learn more
I have one large table, Table 1, that I want to apply some cleaning and transformations to. After that, I want to duplicate it and create some "child" tables from it, eg Table 2. "Duplicate table" does that, no problem. However, I want any new changes I make after this on Table 1 to also flow to Table 2. I would also prefer to not have duplicated the original get data query of Table 1, having duplicated it to create Table 2.
Is this possible?
Example:
Table 1 -> some transformations -> duplicate to create Table 2 -> Table 1 add a column -> Table 2 also gets column added automatically, and data refreshed and synced from Table 1, when Table 1 is refreshed.
Solved! Go to Solution.
@Anonymous , Create a reference
That will use table one always with steps
Sometimes I do this
I bring Table1. Do not do any action on that Create table 2 and table 3 as reference and do all actions of those
Answered my own secondary question. In case anyone else is wondering:
Table 1 has the original query and transformation steps needed (even Table 2 etc need these). Then I do Reference to create a Table 2. All Transformations from Table 1 are applied to Table 2. After that, if I make a change to Table 1 such as Add Column, this new column also appears in Table 2. Exactly what I need. If I need to maintain or clean new data in Table 1, that work is copied over to the Refernce Table 2.
@Anonymous , Create a reference
That will use table one always with steps
Sometimes I do this
I bring Table1. Do not do any action on that Create table 2 and table 3 as reference and do all actions of those
If I am understanding correctly it sounds like Reference will only run the query once, but I will need to manually duplicate the transformations in each of the new reference tables.
Duplicate will copy the transformations, but will also duplicate the queries for each table.
So I have to choose which is the lesser evil for my use- redundant queries or redundant transformations. Is that right?
Share feedback directly with Fabric product managers, participate in targeted research studies and influence the Fabric roadmap.
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 63 | |
| 62 | |
| 42 | |
| 19 | |
| 16 |
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 113 | |
| 105 | |
| 36 | |
| 28 | |
| 28 |