 |
| Business Intelligence Series |
Last week Microsoft had a great session [1] on the present and future of SQL databases, a “light” version of Azure SQL databases designed for Microsoft Fabric environments, respectively workloads. SQL databases are currently available for testing, and after the first tests the product looks promising. Even if there are several feature gaps, it’s expected that Microsoft will bridge the gaps over time. Conversely, there might be features that don’t make sense in Fabric, respectively new features that need to be considered for facilitating the work in OneLake and its ecosystem.
During the session several Microsoft professionals answered the audience’s questions, and they did a great job. Even if the answers and questions barely scratched the surface, they offered some insight into what Microsoft wants to do. Probably the expectation is that SQL databases won’t need any administration - indexes being maintained automatically, infrastructure scaling as needed, however everything sounds too nice to be true if one considers in general the experience with RDBMS – the devil hides usually in details.
Even if the solutions built follow the best practices in the field, which frankly seldom happens, transferring the existing knowledge to Fabric may encounter some important challenges revolving around performance, flexibility, accessibility and probably costs. Even if SQL databases are expected to fill some minor gaps, considering the lessons of the past, such solutions can easily grow. Even if a lot of processing power is thrown at the SQL queries and the various functionality, customers still need to write quality code and refactor otherwise the costs will explode sooner or later.
As the practice has proven so many times while troubleshooting performance issues, sometimes one needs to use all the arsenal available – DBCC, DMVs and sometimes even undocumented features - to get a better understanding of what’s happening. Even if there are some voices stating that developers don’t need to know how the SQL engine works, just applying solutions blindly after a recipe can accidentally increase the value of code, though most likely it doesn’t exploit the full potential available. Unfortunately, this is a subjective topic without hard numbers to support it, and the stories told by developers and third-parties usually don’t tell the whole story.
It’s also true that diving deep into a database’s internal working requires time, that’s quite often not available, and the value for such an effort doesn’t necessarily pay off. Above this, there’s a software engineer’s aim of understanding of how things work. Otherwise, one should drop the engineering word and just call it coding. Conversely, the data citizen just needs a high-level knowledge of how things work, though the past 20-30 years proved that that’s often not enough. The more people don’t have the required knowledge, the higher the chances that code needs refactoring. Just remember the past issues organizations had with MS Access and Excel when people started to create their own solutions, the whole infrastructure being invaded by poorly designed solutions that continue to haunt some organizations even today.
Even if lot of technical knowledge can be transported to Microsoft Fabric, the new environments may still require also adequate tools that can be used for monitoring and troubleshooting. Microsoft seems to work in this direction, though from the information available the tools don’t and can’t offer the whole perspective. It will be interesting to see how much the current, respectively the future dashboards and various reports can help; respectively what important gaps will surface. Until the gaps are addressed, probably the SQL professional must rely on SQL scripts and the DMVs available. All this can be summarized in a few words: it will not be boring!
Previous Post <<||>> Next Post
[1] Microsoft Reactor (2025) Ask The Expert - Fabric Edition - Fabric Databases [link]
