Starting December 3, join live sessions with database experts and the Microsoft product team to learn just how easy it is to get started
Learn moreShape the future of the Fabric Community! Your insights matter. That’s why we created a quick survey to learn about your experience finding answers to technical questions. Take survey.
You would need to have a separate query for each table that you want to end up in Power BI. Use the same join conditions and where clause for each query, just change the columns that you select to only give the columns you want in that particular table.
Both methods worked correctly, which one is better from a star schema perspective?
Is that the only possible way? Without the query total size is 150MB but with the separate query it's 200 MB size which is a bit strange . I am guessing even with the increase size from seperate query the performance should be better than having them all in one table?
You would need to have a separate query for each table that you want to end up in Power BI. Use the same join conditions and where clause for each query, just change the columns that you select to only give the columns you want in that particular table.
Both methods worked correctly, which one is better from a star schema perspective?
Is that the only possible way? Without the query total size is 150MB but with the separate query it's 200 MB size which is a bit strange . I am guessing even with the increase size from seperate query the performance should be better than having them all in one table?
Yes, the increase in size shouldn't affect performance enough to offset the benefits of having a proper star schema
User | Count |
---|---|
90 | |
88 | |
85 | |
80 | |
49 |
User | Count |
---|---|
150 | |
142 | |
112 | |
73 | |
55 |