Updates to Assets Prevent Future Scan Updates
We've been working with Purview slowly over the last few days. Today I was able to scan some heavily used on-prem SQL server databases. Once the scan was complete I went into the assets, located the first asset I wanted to classify, and started to add a description. The minute I clicked Edit on the asset a warning appeared stating "Making a manual update to the asset will prevent future scans on this asset from updating it." As a software developer, I understand why this might be necessary, however as a member of the data governance team it concerns me. I need the ability to add classifications/glossary terms/contacts/descriptions to newly discovered assets, but I'd also like scanning to update the schema as the asset changes based on information found in scans. Is the functionality to edit an asset manually and receive updates from scans something that is on the roadmap? Will it be available in GA?Order of Columns of scanned Parquet Files
Hi, i did a scan of Parquet files (StorageV2 (general purpose v2)). The discovered columns are shown not the original order but alphabetically. When I do a scan with a CSV file the original order is retained. What can I do to keep the order of the columns in a scanned parquet file? Any hints? Do you have the same experience? Thanks, Bernhard
Scan Excel/PowerPoint Data sources
Hi, Let's imagine that Excel uses a database or Power BI as a data source (i.e. for a Pivot Table), will Purview scan the Excel file and visualize the lineage so that you can track which Excel document is using which Power BI data set? I know it's possible with Power BI reports to find out which Dataset they are using, but it would be super helpful to find out what data sources the world's most popular BI front-end (Excel) is using 😉 Same with PowerPoint. So you can embed a Power BI report into a PowerPoint document. Will Purview scan the PowerPoint documents and find out which report/visual they use? For Impact Analysis (I would like to change a report, what other components will be affected) this would be very important... Thanks, Thomas
Microsoft Purview Data Map Approach to scan
I plan to scan Purview data assets owner by owner rather than scanning entire databases in one go because this approach aligns with data governance and RBAC (Role-Based Access Control) principles. By segmenting scans by asset ownership, we ensure that only the designated data asset owners have the ability to edit or update metadata for their respective assets in Purview. This prevents broad, unrestricted access and maintains accountability, as each owner manages the metadata for the tables and datasets they are responsible for. Scanning everything at once would make it harder to enforce these permissions and could lead to unnecessary exposure of metadata management rights. This owner-based scanning strategy keeps governance tight, supports compliance, and ensures that metadata stewardship remains with the right people. This approach also aligns with Microsoft Purview best practices and the RBAC model: Microsoft recommends scoping scans to specific collections or assets rather than ingesting everything at once, allowing different teams or owners to manage their own domains securely and efficiently. Purview supports metadata curation via roles such as Data Owner and Data Curator, ensuring that only users assigned as owners; those with write or owner permissions on specific assets; can edit metadata like descriptions, contacts, or column details. The system adheres to the principle of least privilege, where users with Owner/Write permissions can manage metadata for their assets, while broader curation roles apply only where explicitly granted. Therefore, scanning owner by owner not only enforces governance boundaries but also ensures each data asset owner retains exclusive editing rights over their metadata; supporting accountability, security, and compliance. After scanning by ownership, we can aggregate those assets into a logical data product representing the full database without breaking governance boundaries. Is this considered best practice for managing metadata in Microsoft Purview, and does it confirm that my approach is correct?
