🌌🏭KQL Reloaded: First Steps (Part IV: Left, Right, Anti-Joins and Unions)

In a standard scenario there is a fact table and multiple dimension table (see previous post), though one can look at the same data from multiple perspectives. In KQL it's recommended to start with the fact table, however in some reports one needs records from the dimension table independently whether there are any records in the fact tale.  

For example, it would be useful to show all the products, independently whether they were sold or not. It's what the below query does via a RIGHT JOIN between the fact table and the Customer dimension:

// totals by customer via right join
NewSales
| where SalesAmount <> 0 and ProductCategoryName == 'TV and Video'
| where DateKey >=date(2023-02-01) and DateKey < datetime(2023-03-01)
| summarize record_count = count()
    , TotalCost = sum(TotalCost) by CustomerKey
| join kind=rightouter (
    Customers
    | where RegionCountryName in ('Canada', 'Australia')
    | project CustomerKey, RegionCountryName, CustomerName = strcat(FirstName, ' ', LastName)
    )
    on CustomerKey
| project RegionCountryName, CustomerName, TotalCost
//| summarize record_count = count() 
| order by CustomerName asc

The Product details can be added then via a LEFT JOIN between the fact table and the Product dimension:

// total by customer via right join with product information
NewSales
| where SalesAmount <> 0 and ProductCategoryName == 'TV and Video'
| where DateKey >=date(2023-02-01) and DateKey < datetime(2023-03-01)
| summarize record_count = count()
    , TotalCost = sum(TotalCost)
    , FirstPurchaseDate = min(DateKey)
    , LastPurchaseDate = max(DateKey) by CustomerKey, ProductKey
| join kind=rightouter (
    Customers
    | where RegionCountryName in ('Canada', 'Australia')
    | project CustomerKey, RegionCountryName, CustomerName = strcat(FirstName, ' ', LastName)
    )
    on CustomerKey
| join kind=leftouter (
    Products 
    | where  ProductCategoryName == 'TV and Video'
    | project ProductKey, ProductName 
    )
    on ProductKey
| project RegionCountryName, CustomerName, ProductName, TotalCost, FirstPurchaseDate, LastPurchaseDate, record_count
//| where record_count>1 // multiple purchases
| order by CustomerName asc, ProductName asc

These kind of queries need adequate validation and for this it might be needed to restructure the queries. 

// validating the multiple records (defailed)
NewSales
| where SalesAmount <> 0 and ProductCategoryName == 'TV and Video'
| where DateKey >=date(2023-02-01) and DateKey < datetime(2023-03-01)
| lookup Products on ProductKey
| lookup Customers on CustomerKey 
| where  FirstName == 'Alexandra' and LastName == 'Sanders'
| project CustomerName = strcat(FirstName, ' ', LastName), ProductName, TotalCost, DateKey, ProductKey, CustomerKey 

// validating the multiple records against the fact table (detailed)
NewSales
| where SalesAmount <> 0 and ProductCategoryName == 'TV and Video'
| where DateKey >=date(2023-02-01) and DateKey < datetime(2023-03-01)
| where CustomerKey == 14912

Mixing RIGHT and  LEFT joins in this way increases the complexity of the queries and sometimes comes with a burden for validating the logic. In SQL one could prefer to start with the Customer table, add the summary data and the other dimensions. In this way one can do a total count individually starting with the Customer table and adding each join which reviewing the record count for each change. 

In special scenario instead of a RIGHT JOIN one could use a FULL JOIN and add the Customers without any orders via a UNION. In some scenarios this approach can offer even a better performance. For this approach, one needs to get the Customers without Orders via an anti-join, more exactly a   rightanti:

// customers without orders
NewSales
| where SalesAmount <> 0 and ProductCategoryName == 'TV and Video'
| where DateKey >=date(2023-02-01) and DateKey < datetime(2023-03-01)
| summarize record_count = count()
    , TotalCost = sum(TotalCost)
    , FirstPurchaseDate = min(DateKey)
, LastPurchaseDate = max(DateKey) by CustomerKey, ProductKey
| join kind=rightanti (
    Customers
    | project CustomerKey, RegionCountryName, CustomerName = strcat(FirstName, ' ', LastName)
    )
    on CustomerKey
| project RegionCountryName, CustomerName, ProductName = '', TotalCost = 0
//| summarize count()
| order by CustomerName asc, ProductName asc

And now, joining the Customers with orders with the ones without orders gives an overview of all the customers:

// total by product via lookup with table alias
NewSales
| where SalesAmount <> 0 and ProductCategoryName == 'TV and Video'
| where DateKey >=date(2023-02-01) and DateKey < datetime(2023-03-01)
| summarize record_count = count()
    , TotalCost = sum(TotalCost) by CustomerKey //, ProductKey 
//| lookup Products on ProductKey 
| lookup Customers on CustomerKey
| project RegionCountryName
    , CustomerName = strcat(FirstName, ' ', LastName)
    //, ProductName
    , TotalCost
//| summarize count()
| union withsource=SourceTable kind=outer (
    // customers without orders
    NewSales
    | where SalesAmount <> 0 and ProductCategoryName == 'TV and Video'
    | where DateKey >=date(2023-02-01) and DateKey < datetime(2023-03-01)
    | summarize record_count = count()
        , TotalCost = sum(TotalCost)
        , FirstPurchaseDate = min(DateKey)
        , LastPurchaseDate = max(DateKey) by CustomerKey
        //, ProductKey
    | join kind=rightanti (
        Customers
        | project CustomerKey
            , RegionCountryName
            , CustomerName = strcat(FirstName, ' ', LastName)
        )
        on CustomerKey
    | project RegionCountryName
        , CustomerName
        //, ProductName = ''
        , TotalCost = 0
    //| summarize count()
)
//| summarize count()
| order by CustomerName asc
//, ProductName asc

And, of course, the number of records returned by the three queries must match. The information related to the Product were left out for this version, though it can be added as needed. Unfortunately, there are queries more complex than this, which makes the queries more difficult to read, understand and troubleshoot. Inline views could be useful to structure the logic as needed. 

let T_customers_with_orders = view () { 
    NewSales
    | where SalesAmount <> 0 and ProductCategoryName == 'TV and Video'
    | where DateKey >=date(2023-02-01) and DateKey < datetime(2023-03-01)
    | summarize record_count = count()
        , TotalCost = sum(TotalCost) 
        by CustomerKey
         //, ProductKey 
         //, DateKey
    //| lookup Products on ProductKey 
    | lookup Customers on CustomerKey
    | project RegionCountryName
        , CustomerName = strcat(FirstName, ' ', LastName)
        //, ProductName
        //, ProductCategoryName
        , TotalCost
        //, DateKey
};
let T_customers_without_orders = view () { 
   // customers without orders
    NewSales
    | where SalesAmount <> 0 and ProductCategoryName == 'TV and Video'
    | where DateKey >=date(2023-02-01) and DateKey < datetime(2023-03-01)
    | summarize record_count = count()
        , TotalCost = sum(TotalCost)
        , FirstPurchaseDate = min(DateKey)
        , LastPurchaseDate = max(DateKey) by CustomerKey
        //, ProductKey
    | join kind=rightanti (
        Customers
        | project CustomerKey
            , RegionCountryName
            , CustomerName = strcat(FirstName, ' ', LastName)
        )
        on CustomerKey
    | project RegionCountryName
        , CustomerName
        //, ProductName = ''
        , TotalCost = 0
    //| summarize count()
};
T_customers_with_orders
| union withsource=SourceTable kind=outer T_customers_without_orders
| summarize count()

In this way the queries should be easier to troubleshoot and restructure the logic in more manageable pieces. 

It would be useful to save the definition of the view (aka stored view), however it's not possible to create views on the machine on which the tests are run:

"Principal 'aaduser=...' is not authorized to write database 'ContosoSales'."

Happy coding!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

💎🏭SQL Reloaded: Microsoft Fabric's SQL Databases (Part I: Creating a View) [new feature]

At this year's Ignite conference it was announced that SQL databases are available now in Fabric in public preview (see SQL Databases for OLTP scenarios, [1]). To test the functionality one can import the SalesLT database in a newly created empty database, which made available several tables:

 

-- tables from SalesLT schema (queries should be run individually)
SELECT TOP 100 * FROM SalesLT.Address
SELECT TOP 100 * FROM SalesLT.Customer
SELECT TOP 100 * FROM SalesLT.CustomerAddress
SELECT TOP 100 * FROM SalesLT.Product ITM 
SELECT TOP 100 * FROM SalesLT.ProductCategory
SELECT TOP 100 * FROM SalesLT.ProductDescription 
SELECT TOP 100 * FROM SalesLT.ProductModel  
SELECT TOP 100 * FROM SalesLT.ProductModelProductDescription 
SELECT TOP 100 * FROM SalesLT.SalesOrderDetail
SELECT TOP 100 * FROM SalesLT.SalesOrderHeader

The schema seems to be slightly different than the schemas used in previous tests made in SQL Server, though with a few minor changes - mainly removing the fields not available - one can create the below view:

 

-- drop the view (cleaning step)

-- DROP VIEW IF EXISTS SalesLT.vProducts 

-- create the view
CREATE OR ALTER VIEW SalesLT.vProducts
-- Products (view) 
AS 
SELECT ITM.ProductID 
, ITM.ProductCategoryID 
, PPS.ParentProductCategoryID 
, ITM.ProductModelID 
, ITM.Name ProductName 
, ITM.ProductNumber 
, PPM.Name ProductModel 
, PPS.Name ProductSubcategory 
, PPC.Name ProductCategory  
, ITM.Color 
, ITM.StandardCost 
, ITM.ListPrice 
, ITM.Size 
, ITM.Weight 
, ITM.SellStartDate 
, ITM.SellEndDate 
, ITM.DiscontinuedDate 
, ITM.ModifiedDate 
FROM SalesLT.Product ITM 
     JOIN SalesLT.ProductModel PPM 
       ON ITM.ProductModelID = PPM.ProductModelID 
     JOIN SalesLT.ProductCategory PPS 
        ON ITM.ProductCategoryID = PPS.ProductCategoryID 
         JOIN SalesLT.ProductCategory PPC 
            ON PPS.ParentProductCategoryID = PPC.ProductCategoryID

-- review the data
SELECT top 100 *
FROM SalesLT.vProducts

In the view were used FULL JOINs presuming thus that a value was provided for each record. It's always a good idea to test the presumptions when creating the queries, and eventually check from time to time whether something changed. In some cases it's a good idea to always use LEFT JOINs, though this might have impact on performance and probably other consequences as well.

 

-- check if all models are available
SELECT top 100 ITM.*
FROM SalesLT.Product ITM 
    LEFT JOIN SalesLT.ProductModel PPM 
       ON ITM.ProductModelID = PPM.ProductModelID 
WHERE PPM.ProductModelID IS NULL

-- check if all models are available
SELECT top 100 ITM.*
FROM SalesLT.Product ITM 
    LEFT JOIN SalesLT.ProductCategory PPS 
        ON ITM.ProductCategoryID = PPS.ProductCategoryID 
WHERE PPS.ProductCategoryID IS NULL

-- check if all categories are available
SELECT PPS.*
FROM SalesLT.ProductCategory PPS 
     LEFT JOIN SalesLT.ProductCategory PPC 
       ON PPS.ParentProductCategoryID = PPC.ProductCategoryID
WHERE PPC.ProductCategoryID IS NULL

Because the Product categories have an hierarchical structure, it's a good idea to check the hierarchy as well:

 

-- check the hierarchical structure 
SELECT PPS.ProductCategoryId 
, PPS.ParentProductCategoryId 
, PPS.Name ProductCategory
, PPC.Name ParentProductCategory
FROM SalesLT.ProductCategory PPS 
     LEFT JOIN SalesLT.ProductCategory PPC 
       ON PPS.ParentProductCategoryID = PPC.ProductCategoryID
--WHERE PPC.ProductCategoryID IS NULL
ORDER BY IsNull(PPC.Name, PPS.Name)

This last query can be consolidated in its own view and the previous view changed, if needed.

One can then save all the code as a file. 

Except some small glitches in the editor, everything went smoothly. 

Notes:
1) One can suppose that many or most of the queries created in the previous versions of SQL Server work also in SQL databases. The future and revised posts on such topics are labelled under sql database.
2) During the various tests I got the following error message when trying to create a table:

"The external policy action 'Microsoft.Sql/Sqlservers/Databases/Schemas/Tables/Create' was denied on the requested resource."

At least in my case all I had to do was to select "SQL Database" instead of "SQL analytics endpoint" in the web editor. Check the top right dropdown below your user information.

[3] For a full least of the available features see [2].

Happy coding!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References:
[1] Microsoft Learn (2024) SQL database in Microsoft Fabric (Preview) [link]
[2] Microsoft Learn (2024) Features comparison: Azure SQL Database and SQL database in Microsoft Fabric (preview) [link]

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part XII: From Data to Data Models)

Business Intelligence Series

A data model can be defined as an abstract, self-contained, logical definition of the data structures available in a database or similar repositories. It’s typically an abstraction of the data structures underpinning a set of processes, procedures and business logic used for a predefined purpose. A data model can be formed also of unrelated micromodels, depicting thus various aspects of a business. 

The association between data and data models is bidirectional. Given a set of data, a data model can be built to underpin the respective data. Conversely, one can create or generate data based on a data model. However, in business setups a bidirectional relationship between data and the data model(s) underpinning them is more realistic as the business evolves. In extremis, the data model can be used to reflect a business’ needs, at least when the respective needs are addressed accordingly by extending the data model(s).

Given a set of data (e.g. the data stored in one or more spreadsheets or other type of files) there can be defined in theory multiple data models to reflect the respective data. Within a data model, the fields (aka attributes) are partitioned into a set of data entities, where a data entity is thus a nonunique grouping of attributes that attempt to define together one unitary aspect of the world. Customers, Vendors, Products, Invoices or Sales Orders are examples of such data entities, though entities can have a broader granularity (e.g. Customers can be modeled over several tables like Entity, Addresses, Contact information, etc.). 

From an operational database’s perspective, a data entity is based on one or more tables, though several entities can share some of the tables. From a BI artifact’s perspective, an entity should be easy to create from the underlying tables, with a minimal set of transformations. Ideally, the BI data model should be as close as possible to the needed entity for reporting, however an optimal solution lies usually somewhere in between. In this resides the complexity of modeling BI solutions – providing an optimal data model which can be easily built on the source tables, and which allows addressing all or at least most of the BI requirements.

In other words, we deal with two optimization problems of two distinct data models. On one side the business data model must be flexible enough to provide fast read/write operations while keeping the referential data’s granularity efficient. Conversely, a BI data model needs to abstract these entities and provide a fast way of processing the data, while making data reads extremely efficient. These perspectives must apply when we move to Microsoft Fabric too. 

The operational data layer must provide this abstraction, and in this resides the complexity of building optimal BI solutions. This is the layer at which the modeling problems need to be tackled. The challenge of BI and Analytics resides in finding an optimal data model that allows us to address most or ideally all the BI requirements. Several overlapping layers of abstraction may be built in the process.

Looking at the data modeling techniques used in notebooks and other similar solutions, data modeling has the chance of becoming a redundant practice prone to errors. Moreover, data models have a tendency of being multilayered and of being based on certain perspectives into the processes they model. Providing reliable flexible models involves finding the right view into the data for modeling aspects of the business. Database views allow us to easily model such perspectives, often in a unique way. Moving away from them just shifts the burden on the multiple solutions built around the base data, which can create other important challenges. 

Previous Post <<||>>  Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part XI: Ways of Thinking about Data)

Business Intelligence Series

One can observe sometimes the tendency of data professionals to move from a business problem directly to data and data modeling without trying to understand the processes behind the data. One could say that the behavior is driven by the eagerness of exploring the data, though even later there are seldom questions considered about the processes themselves. One can argue that maybe the processes are self-explanatory, though that’s seldom the case. 

Conversely, looking at the datasets available on the web, usually there’s a fact table and the associated dimensions, the data describing only one process. It’s natural to presume that there are data professionals who don’t think much about, or better said in terms of processes. A similar big jump can be observed in blog posts on dashboards and/or reports, bloggers moving from the data directly to the data model. 

In the world of complex systems like Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems thinking in terms of processes is mandatory because a fact table can hold the data for different processes, while processes can span over multiple fact-like tables, and have thus multiple levels of detail. Moreover, processes are broken down into sub-processes and procedures that have a counterpart in the data as well. 

Moreover, within a process there can be multiple perspectives that are usually module or role dependent. A perspective is a role’s orientation to the word for which the data belongs to, and it’s slightly different from what the data professional considers as view, the perspective being a projection over a set of processes within the data, while a view is a projection of the perspectives into the data structure. 

For example, considering the order-to-cash process there are several sub-processes like order fulfillment, invoicing, and payment collection, though there can be several other processes involved like credit management or production and manufacturing. Creating, respectively updating, or canceling an order can be examples of procedures. 

The sales representative, the shop worker and the accountant will have different perspectives projected into the data, focusing on the projection of the data on the modules they work with. Thinking in terms of modules is probably the easiest way to identify the boundaries of the perspectives, though the rules are occasionally more complex than this.

When defining and/or attempting to understand a problem it’s important to understand which perspective needs to be considered. For example, the sales volume can be projected based on Sales orders or on invoiced Sales orders, respectively on the General ledger postings, and the three views can result in different numbers. Moreover, there are partitions within these perspectives based on business rules that determine what to include or exclude from the logic. 

One can define a business rule as a set of conditional logic that constraints some part of the data in the data structures by specifying what is allowed or not, though usually we refer to a special type called selection business rule that determines what data are selected (e.g. open Purchase orders, Products with Inventory, etc.). However, when building the data model we need to consider business rules as well, though we might need to check whether they are enforced as well. 

Moreover, it’s useful to think also in terms of (data) entities and sub-entities, in which the data entity is an abstraction from the physical implementation of database tables. A data entity encapsulates (hides internal details) a business concept and/or perspective into an abstraction (simplified representation) that makes development, integration, and data processing easier. In certain systems like Dynamics 365 is important to think at this level because data entities can simplify data modelling considerably.

Previous Post <<||>>  Next Post

🧭🏭Business Intelligence: Microsoft Fabric (Part I: Notebooks)

Business Intelligence Series 

When several technologies make their entrance in a data-related field like Data Warehousing, Data Analitics or Data Science, one is forced to understand how the respective technologies can be used or misused, respectively what's their place in the bigger picture. Microsoft Fabric introduces several important technologies that will change the way data are stored, processed and consumed. 

The first important technology is the notebook - a web document-like cell-based container for writing and executing code in a collaborative manner. The concept is not new, Jupyter notebooks have been around for almost a decade. In Microsof Fabric, notebooks support multiple languages, from which a default one applies to the whole notebook, while on cell level any of the supported languages can be used. 

One can execute a single cell, multiple cells or the entire notebook in a sequential manner, mix languages for the various operations - load, transform, save, and visualize data when needed. Notebooks can be parametrized and run via the homonymous activity in Data Factory pipelines, automating thus data processing. Probably more functionality is to come. 

Data engineers seems to have great flexibility, though usually flexibility implies constraints and/or mischiefs in other areas. I see for example in presentations the overuse of temporary data objects (mainly views) in Spark SQL as part of complex logic. That's acceptable during prototyping, though such code becomes a danger as soon the logic is deployed into production. Data objects should be created outside of the logic that uses them and should be treated as artifacts, with version control and proper documentation. It's maybe true that temporary objects reduce the volume of objects in the metastore, though is this the way to go?

Temporary objects tend to lead to wheel's reinvention or they get duplicated across multiple notebooks, which can easily create a maintenance nightmare. One needs to consider that the business logic changes a lot, the requirements and the data sources change, and on the long term, the cost of maintaining the code can easily overweight the benefits. 

Notebooks remind me of the beginnings of web programming when HTML was mixed up with client scripting languages like VB Script or Javascript, CSS, respectively server-side scripting languages. It was kind of a spaghetti code, modified repeatedly by multiple programmers, unendingly duplicated, and through a miracle it worked, until it stopped working unexpectedly in strangest situations. The strangest part was when after removing  commented code from a section made the code run again. 

The debugging of another person's code was a nightmare. Code developed by two people for similar purposes was looking unrecognizable different in terms of structure, programming techniques and layout. The technical debt was high, increasing in exponential manner. One was aware that the code needed refactoring, though there were more important things to do or no time allocated for it.

In the meantime the maturity of programming languages, frameworks, methodologies, best practices, and hopefully of programmers improved the overall quality of software (at least on average). Thinking of software from an Engineer's perspective improved the efficiency and effectiveness of a programmer's endeavor. The average programmer is able to write quality code, though there's a considerable minimum of "engineering" knowledge involved beside the mere knowledge of languages and tools. 

Notebooks are good up to a point, beyond which one needs to take a step back, restructure, move the code where it belongs, take a few more steps back and review the good practices and their application, disseminate the knowledge inside the team and use it in the next iterations, respectively refractor the code when needed! Hopefully, people learned from the mistakes of the past. 

Resources:
[1] Microsoft Learn (2023) How to use Microsoft Fabric notebooks (link) 

💎🏭SQL Reloaded: Microsoft Fabric's Delta Tables in Action - Views and other Data Objects

One reads in the training material that the SQL Endpoint provides a read-only experience [1], meaning that no data can be written back to the delta lake tables. Playing with the metadata available in Spark SQL via Notebooks and the SQL Endpoint (see post), I realized that there is more to the statement! Even if one can query via the SQL Endpoint only delta tables, this doesn't mean that one can't build a semantic model on top of it, much like one was able to do via the Serverless SQL pool in Azure Synapse.

In Spark one can create via SQL, PySpark and the other supported languages views and functions, though they will not be available to the SQL Endpoint! To use the data generated in the process, the respective data needs to be saved to delta tables. Conversely, one can still create views, functions and stored procedures via the SQL Endpoint though the objects won't be available in Spark SQL! 

This has important implications, though in this post let's focus on the syntax and create several objects for testing purposes in the two environments. I'll use the Assets delta table created in a previous post. The Spark SQL code should be run in a notebook (e.g. one cell per group of statements), while the code for the SQL Endpoint should be run in SQL Server Management Studio.

Views

/* test view's creation in the SQL Endpoint */

-- drop the test view 
DROP VIEW IF EXISTS dbo.vAssets_Microsoft2;
GO

-- create the test view
CREATE VIEW dbo.vAssets_Microsoft2
AS
--Microsoft assets
SELECT Id, CreationDate, Vendor, Asset, Model, Owner, Tag, Quantity
FROM dbo.Assets
WHERE Vendor = 'Microsoft';
GO

-- test the viwe
SELECT *
FROM dbo.vAssets_Microsoft2;

/* test view's creation in Spark SQL */

-- drop test view 
DROP VIEW IF EXISTS vAssets_Microsoft;

-- create test view
CREATE VIEW vAssets_Microsoft COMMENT 'Microsoft assets in scope (view)'
AS
SELECT Id, CreationDate, Vendor, Asset, Model, Owner, Tag, Quantity
FROM assets
WHERE Vendor = 'Microsoft';

-- review data
SELECT *
FROM vAssets_Microsoft;

Table-Valued Functions

/* test function's creation in the SQL Endpoint */

-- drop the test function 
DROP FUNCTION IF EXISTS dbo.fAssets_Microsoft2;
GO

-- create the test function
CREATE FUNCTION dbo.fAssets_Microsoft2(
    @Vendor nvarchar(max))
RETURNS TABLE 
AS 
RETURN (
    SELECT Id, CreationDate, Vendor, Asset, Model, Owner, Tag, Quantity
    FROM dbo.Assets
    WHERE Vendor = @Vendor
);
GO

-- test the function
SELECT *
FROM dbo.fAssets_Microsoft2('Microsoft');

SELECT *
FROM dbo.fAssets_Microsoft2('Dell');

Unfortunately, the Spark SQL code doesn't seem to work, its execution returning a PARSE_SYNTAX_ERROR error no matter how simple the code was (see also [2]).

 

/* test function's creation in Spark SQL */

-- drop test function 
DROP FUNCTION IF EXISTS fAssets_Microsoft;

-- create test function
CREATE FUNCTION fAssets_Microsoft(
    pVendor string)
RETURNS TABLE
AS 
RETURN 
    SELECT Id, CreationDate, Vendor, Asset, Model, Owner, Tag, Quantity
    FROM assets
    WHERE Vendor = pVendor;

-- review data
SELECT *
FROM fAssets_Microsoft('Microsoft');

Stored Procedure

Stored procedures aren't available in Spark SQL, though this doesn't mean that we can't test the code in the SQL Endpoint:

/* test procedure's creation in the SQL Endpoint */

-- drop the test procedure 
DROP PROCEDURE IF EXISTS dbo.spAssets_Microsoft2;
GO

-- create the test procedure
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.spAssets_Microsoft2(
@Vendor nvarchar(max) = NULL)
AS
--Microsoft assets
SELECT Id, CreationDate, Vendor, Asset, Model, Owner, Tag, Quantity
FROM dbo.Assets
WHERE Vendor = IsNull(@Vendor, Vendor);
GO

-- test the procedure
EXEC dbo.spAssets_Microsoft2 'Microsoft';
EXEC dbo.spAssets_Microsoft2 'Dell';
EXEC dbo.spAssets_Microsoft2;

Notes:

1) I observed in documentation and some presentations that the common practice of prefixing data objects based on their type is seldom considered. I still find it useful when building solutions, even if object's type can be derived from the context and/or metadata. 

2) The examples were chosen to test the minimal functionality so that the differences between the two platforms are minimal - using the dbo schema and the GO command in the SQL Endpoint, COMMENT in Spark SQL. However, as soon specific functionality is used, extra code is needed to mitigate the differences.
3) The names between environments were kept different, just in case one needs to test objects' availability between platforms.

Happy coding!

Previous Post  <<||>>  Next Post

Resources:
[1] Microsoft Learn (2023) Work with Delta Lake tables in Microsoft Fabric (link)

[2] Databricks (2023) CREATE FUNCTION (SQL and Python) (link)

💎🏭SQL Reloaded: Microsoft Fabric's Delta Tables in Action - Data Objects Metadata

There seem to be four main sources for learning about the functionality available in the Delta Lake especially in what concerns the SQL dialect used by the Spark SQL: Databricks [1], Delta Lake [2], Azure Databricks [3], respectively the Data Engineering documentation in Microsoft Fabric [4] and the afferent certification material. Unfortunately, the latter focuses more on PySpark. So, until Microsoft addresses the gap, one can consult the other sources, check what's working and built thus the required knowledge for handling the various tasks. 

First of all, it's important to understand which the data objects available in Microsoft Fabric are. Based on [5] I could identify the following hierarchy:

According to the same source [5] the metastore contains all of the metadata that defines data objects in the lakehouse, while the catalog is the highest abstraction in the lakehouse. The database, called also a schema, keeps its standard definition - a collection of data objects, such as tables or views (aka relations) and functions. The tables, views and functions keep their standard definitions. Except the metastore, these are also the (securable) objects on which permissions can be set. 

One can explore the structure in Spark SQL by using the SHOW command:

-- explore the data objects from the lakehouse
SHOW CATALOGS;

SHOW DATABASES;

SHOW SCHEMAS;

SHOW CATALOGS;

SHOW VIEWS;

SHOW TABLES;

SHOW FUNCTIONS;

Moreover, one can list only the objects from an object from the parent (e.g. the tables existing in a database):

 

-- all tables from a database
SHOW TABLES FROM Testing;

-- all tables from a database matching a pattern
SHOW TABLES FROM Testing LIKE 'Asset*';

-- all tables from a database matching multiple patterns
SHOW TABLES FROM Testing LIKE 'Asset*|cit*';

Notes:
1) Same syntax applies for views and functions, respectively for the other objects in respect to their parents (from the hierarchy). 
2) Instead of FROM one can use the IN keyword, though I'm not sure what's the difference given that they seem to return same results.
3) For databases and tables one can use also the SQL Server to export the related metadata. Unfortunately, it's not the case for views and functions because when the respective objects are created in Spark SQL, they aren't visible over the SQL Endpoint, and vice versa.

4) Given that there are multiple environments that deal with delta tables, to minimize the confusion that might result from their use, it makes sense to use database as term instead of schema. 

References:
[1] Databricks (2024) SQL language reference (link)
[2] Delta Lake (2023) Delta Lake documentation (link)
[3] Microsoft Learn (2023) Azure Databricks documentation (link)
[4] Microsoft Learn (2023) Data Engineering documentation in Microsoft Fabric (link)
[5] Databricks (2023) Data objects in the Databricks lakehouse (link)