Smart Pipelines Orchestration: Designing Predictable Data Platforms on Shared Spark
Introduction In mature data platforms, scaling compute is rarely the primary challenge. Shared, elastic Spark pools already provide sufficient processing capacity for most workloads. The harder problem is achieving predictable execution when multiple pipelines compete for the same resources. In Azure Synapse, Spark pools are commonly shared across pipelines to optimize cost and utilization. While this model is efficient, it introduces a key limitation: execution order is determined by scheduling behavior, not business priority. This post describes an orchestration pattern that makes priority explicit, allowing critical workloads to run predictably on shared Spark compute without modifying Spark code, configuration, or cluster capacity. Goal This work does not aim to optimize Spark performance. Its goal is to ensure that, when pipelines share a Spark pool: latency-sensitive workloads run first heavy backfills do not delay critical pipelines execution order is deterministic under contention All of this needed to be achieved without changes to Spark configuration, notebook logic, or cluster size. Why This Problem Occurs In a naïve orchestration model, pipelines are triggered in parallel. From Spark’s perspective: all jobs are equivalent all jobs attempt to acquire executors at the same time scheduling decisions are based on availability and timing As a result, priority is implicit and often incorrect. A heavy workload may acquire executors before a lightweight but critical one simply because it requests more resources earlier. This behavior is expected from Spark. The issue lies in orchestration, not in compute. Core Concept: Priority as Execution Ordering In shared Spark platforms, priority is enforced through execution ordering, not compute tuning. The orchestration layer controls when workloads are admitted to shared compute. Once execution begins, Spark processes each workload normally. This preserves Spark’s execution model while providing deterministic workload ordering. Step 1: Workload Classification In the demo presented in this blog, workloads are classified during configuration based on business impact: Category Description Priority example Light (critical) SLA sensitive dashboard and downstream consumers High priority , low resource weight(data volume) Medium (High) Core reporting workloads Medium priority Heavy(Best Effort) Backfills and historical computes Low priority, high resource weight(data volume) This classification is external to Spark and external to code. It represents business intent, not implementation. As a future phase, classification can be automated,for example, an agent may adjust priority based on observed failure rates or execution stability. Workload classification is expressed as orchestration metadata, for example: [ {"name":"ExecDashboard","pipeline":"PL_Light_ExecDashboard","weight":1,"tier":"Critical"}, {"name":"FinanceReporting","pipeline":"PL_Medium_FinanceReporting","weight":3,"tier":"High"}, {"name":"Backfill","pipeline":"PL_Heavy_Backfill","weight":8,"tier":"BestEffort"} ] What Runs in Each Workload Category All pipelines execute on the same shared Spark pool, but the work they perform differs in scope, data volume, and sensitivity to contention. Light workloads power SLA-sensitive dashboards and downstream consumers. Their notebooks perform targeted reads with strong filtering, limited joins, and small aggregations. Execution time is short, and overall pipeline duration is dominated by executor availability rather than computation. Medium workloads represent core reporting and analytics logic. These notebooks process larger datasets, perform joins across multiple sources, and apply aggregations that are more expensive than Light workloads but still time-bounded and business-critical. Heavy workloads are best-effort pipelines such as backfills and historical recomputation. Their notebooks scan large data volumes, apply expensive transformations, and are optimized for throughput rather than responsiveness. These workloads tolerate delay but place significant pressure on shared compute when admitted concurrently. All workloads use the same Spark pool, executor configuration, and runtime. The distinction reflects business intent and execution characteristics, not Spark tuning. Example notebooks for each category are available in the accompanying GitHub repository. Step 2: Naïve Orchestration (Baseline) The following pipeline run illustrates the baseline behavior when all workloads are triggered in parallel against a shared Spark pool. All Light, Medium, and Heavy pipelines are admitted concurrently. Executor acquisition and execution order depend on timing rather than business priority, resulting in non-deterministic behavior under contention. Although Light workloads require minimal compute, they are delayed by executor contention caused by Medium and Heavy pipelines entering the Spark pool at the same time. Step 3: Smart Orchestration (Priority-Aware) Orchestration Model The same child pipelines and notebooks are reused. The parent pipeline enforces admission order: Light (Critical) Medium (High) Heavy (Best Effort) Dependencies control admission to the Spark pool. Parallelism is preserved within a priority class. Effect on Shared Spark Light workloads enter the Spark pool without contention Medium workloads run after Light completes Heavy workloads are intentionally delayed Executor acquisition aligns with business priority Light pipelines execute first and complete before medium pipelines are admitted. Heavy workloads run last by design. No Spark configuration changes are introduced. The Spark pool, notebooks, and executor configuration are identical to the naïve run. Only the orchestration graph differs. Step 4: Impact on Light Workloads Light workloads are particularly sensitive to orchestration because their runtime is dominated by queueing time, not computation. Comparing the naïve and priority-aware runs shows that Spark execution time is unchanged, but pipeline duration improves due to earlier admission to the Spark pool and immediate executor access Naïve Execution Spark execution time: short and unchanged Pipeline duration: minutes under contention Delay caused by executor unavailability Smart Execution Spark execution time: unchanged Pipeline duration closely matches compute time Immediate access to executors The improvement comes from removing admission contention, not from increasing resources. Results and Performance Compared to naïve orchestration, priority-aware orchestration ensures that Light workloads complete in minutes rather than tens of minutes under contention, while Spark execution time itself remains unchanged. Heavy workloads no longer delay latency-sensitive pipelines, and execution order is deterministic across runs. These improvements are achieved solely by controlling admission to the shared Spark pool, without modifying Spark configuration, notebook logic, or cluster capacity. Next Steps: 1. Optimizing Heavy Workloads Once heavy workloads are isolated by priority, they can be optimized independently: retries with backoff tolerance for transient failures increased executor counts or larger pools Without admission control, these optimizations increase contention, with smart orchestration, they do not impact critical pipelines. 2. Moving Beyond Static Classification In this implementation, workload classification is static and configuration-driven, which is sufficient for stabilization. A next phase is adaptive classification: collect execution metrics and failure rates detect unstable pipelines reclassify pipelines that exceed thresholds (e.g., >20% failures in a rolling window) This prevents unstable workloads from impacting critical execution paths and makes the pipeline reliable with minimal maintenance. 3. Assisted Classification with Copilot agent At scale, priority decisions benefit from automation. A Copilot-style agent can use historical execution data to recommend classification changes, grounding decisions in observed behavior while keeping engineers in control. Example: Changing workload classification from Light to Medium Consider a pipeline initially classified as Light because it powers an SLA-sensitive dashboard and typically executes quickly with minimal resource usage. Over time, execution telemetry shows a change in behavior: The pipeline fails in 4 of the last 10 runs due to transient Spark errors Average duration has increased by 3×, even when admitted early Retry attempts amplify contention for other Light workloads Based on these signals, an automated agent flags the workload as unstable and recommends reclassifying it from Light to Medium. After reclassification: The pipeline is admitted after Light workloads but before Heavy workloads It no longer blocks latency-critical paths when retries occur Execution remains predictable, while instability is isolated from critical workloads The notebook logic and Spark configuration remain unchanged, only the workload’s admission priority is updated via orchestration metadata. This approach allows the platform to adapt to changing workload characteristics while preserving deterministic execution for critical pipelines. Conclusion Parallel execution is a default, not a strategy. In shared environments, orchestration must explicitly encode business intent rather than relying on scheduler behavior. Enforcing priority at the orchestration layer restores predictability without sacrificing efficiency and provides a foundation for adaptive, policy-driven execution as platforms evolve. Links Orchestrating data movement and transformation in Azure Data Factory - Training | Microsoft Learn How to Optimize Spark Jobs for Maximum Performance: A Complete Guide GitHub repo for notebook reference: sallydabbahmsft/Smart-pipelines-orchestration Feedback: Sally Dabbah | LinkedInTableau to Power BI Migration: Semantic Layer-First Approach for Cloud Architects
Author's: Lavanya Sreedhar LavanyaSreedhar, Peter Lo PeterLo, Aryan Anmol aryananmol, Shreya Harvu shreyaharvu and Rafia Aqil Rafia_Aqil In this guide, we provide practical guidance for migrating from Tableau to Power BI, with a focus on technical best practices and architecture. Unifying business intelligence on the Microsoft Fabric platform, enterprises gain closer integration with Microsoft 365 (Teams, Copilot, Excel). For cloud solution architects and BI developers, a successful migration is not just about rebuilding dashboards in a new tool. It requires thoughtful architectural planning and a shift to a more model-centric approach to BI. Why Semantic Layer-First Architecture Matters The Traditional Migration Challenge Most Tableau to Power BI migrations follow a dashboard-centric approach: teams attempt to replicate existing Tableau workbooks, calculated fields, and LOD (Level of Detail) expressions directly into Power BI reports. While this may seem efficient initially, it creates significant downstream challenges: Duplicated logic: Each report embeds its own calculations and business rules, leading to conflicting KPIs across the organization Maintenance overhead: Changes to business logic require updating dozens or hundreds of individual reports Governance gaps: Without centralized definitions, semantic drift occurs—different teams calculate "Revenue" or "Active Customer" differently Scalability issues: As data volumes grow, report-level transformations become performance bottlenecks The Semantic Layer-First Alternative Microsoft's recommended approach centers on semantic models (formerly called datasets)—centralized, governed data models that separate business logic from visualization. In this architecture: The payoff is substantial: when data evolves or business rules change, you update the semantic model once, and all dependent reports automatically reflect the changes—no manual redesign required. Understanding Migration Complexity: Simple to Very Complex Dashboards Not all Tableau dashboards are created equal. The migration strategy should align with dashboard complexity, and the semantic layer approach becomes increasingly valuable as complexity grows. Follow a Step-by-Step Migration Strategy Migrating from Tableau to Power BI is not a one-click effort – it requires a mix of automated and manual refactoring, plus a sound change management plan. Below are key strategies and best practices for a successful migration: Audit your Tableau estate: Start by taking inventory of all existing Tableau workbooks, data sources, and dashboards. Determine what needs to be migrated (focus on high-value, widely used reports first) and identify any redundant or obsolete content that can be retired rather than converted. Conduct a proof-of-concept (PoC): Before migrating everything, pick a representative complex dashboard (or a subset of your data) and perform a pilot migration. This will help you validate that Power BI can connect to your data (e.g. setting up the Power BI gateways for on-premises sources), test performance (Import vs DirectQuery modes), and experiment with replicating key visuals or calculations. Use the PoC to uncover any surprises early – for example, test that any Level of Detail expressions or table calculations in Tableau can be re-created in DAX. The lessons learned here should inform your overall project plan. Use a phased migration approach: Plan to run Tableau and Power BI in parallel for some period, rather than switching everything at once. Migrate in waves – for example, by business unit or subject area – and incorporate user feedback as you go. This phased approach reduces risk and allows your team to improve the process with each iteration. It also gives end users time to adjust gradually. Migrate high-impact dashboards first: Prioritize the migration of key reports and dashboards that are critical to the business or have the most usage. Delivering these early wins will not only surface any technical challenges to solve but will also help demonstrate the value of Power BI’s capabilities to stakeholders. Early success builds buy-in and momentum for the rest of the migration. Reimagine (don’t just replicate) the experience: It’s rarely possible – or desirable – to exactly re-create every Tableau visualization pixel-for-pixel in Power BI. Embrace the opportunity to focus on business questions and improve user experience with Power BI’s features. For example, rather than replicating a complex Tableau workaround, you might implement a cleaner solution in Power BI using native features (like bookmarks, drilldowns, or simpler navigation between pages). Engage business users and subject matter experts during this redesign to ensure the new reports meet their needs. Enable dataset reusability: One major benefit of the Power BI approach is the ability to create shared datasets and dataflows. As you migrate, look for opportunities to create central semantic models (datasets) that can serve multiple reports. For instance, if several Tableau workbooks are all using similar data about sales, you can create one central Sales dataset in Power BI. Report creators across the organization can then build different Power BI reports on that single dataset without duplicating data or logic. This reduces maintenance and promotes a “build once, reuse often” strategy. Provide training and support: Expect a learning curve for teams moving to Power BI – especially those who are very fluent in Tableau. Plan for user upskilling and training programs. Establish a support community or office hours where new users can ask questions and get help. If possible, identify Power BI champions or recruit a Power BI Center of Excellence (COE) team who can guide others. During the transition, ensure there are subject matter experts (SMEs) available to address questions and validate that the new reports are correct. Manage change and expectations: It’s important to communicate why the organization is moving to Power BI (e.g. benefits like deeper integration, lower TCO, better governance) to get buy-in from end users. Some users may be resistant to change, especially if they’ve invested a lot of time in mastering Tableau. Prepare to handle varying responses – emphasize the personal benefits (like improved performance, new capabilities, or career growth with popular skills) to encourage adoption. Also, involve influential business users early and gather their feedback, so they feel ownership in the new solution. Establish governance from Day 1: Don’t wait until after migration to think about governance. Use this chance to set up Power BI governance aligned to best practices. Decide on important aspects such as workspace naming conventions, who can create or publish content, how you’ll monitor usage and costs, and how to manage data access and security (for example, designing a strategy for RLS/OLS/CLS, and deciding when to use per-user datasets vs. organizational semantic models). Good governance will ensure your shiny new Power BI environment doesn’t sprawl into chaos over time. Allow time for adjustment and iteration: Finally, be patient and iterative. Depending on the scale of your organization and the number of Tableau assets, a full migration can take months or even a year or more. Plan realistic transition periods where both systems might coexist. Continuously refine your approach with each wave of migration. Power BI’s frequent update cadence (monthly releases) means new features may emerge even during your project – stay updated, as new capabilities could simplify your migration (for example, the introduction of field parameters or Copilot might let you modernize certain Tableau features more easily). Reimagine (don’t just replicate) the experience (Step 5): Phase 1: Assessment and Planning 1. Audit Your Tableau Estate Inventory all workbooks, data sources, and calculated fields Identify high-traffic dashboards (prioritize for early migration) Categorize by complexity (Simple/Medium/Complex/Very Complex) 2. Design Your Semantic Architecture Map Tableau data sources to Power BI data sources (DirectQuery, Import, or Direct Lake) Plan star schema for fact/dimension tables Identify shared calculations that should live in semantic models vs. report-specific logic 3. Choose Storage Modes Source Type Recommended Mode Rationale Databricks Delta Lake Direct Lake Real-time analytics, no refresh lag Azure SQL Database DirectQuery or Import Based on data volume and refresh SLAs On-Premises SQL Server Import (via Gateway) Network latency considerations Excel/CSV files Import Small reference data Phase 2: Build the Semantic Layer 1. Create Star Schema Data Models Tableau often relies on flat, denormalized datasets. Power BI performs best with star schemas: Fact tables: Transactional data (sales, orders, events) with foreign keys to dimensions Dimension tables: Descriptive attributes (customers, products, dates) with primary keys Relationships: One-to-many from dimension to fact, leveraging bidirectional filtering sparingly 2. Migrate Calculations to DAX Measures Convert Tableau calculated fields to DAX measures in the semantic model: --Example of DAX: -- Define as measure: Total Revenue = SUMX( 'Sales', 'Sales'[Quantity] * 'Sales'[Unit Price] ) 2.1 Use Copilot to Accelerate DAX Development Leverage Copilot in Power BI Desktop to generate and validate DAX: Describe the calculation in natural language Copilot suggests DAX syntax Review, test, and refine 2.2 Document your Semantic Model Invest in creating an AI-ready foundation for your semantic model. AI systems need to understand unique business contexts in order to prioritize correct information to provide consistent and reliable responses to your end users. Name Tables and Columns Clearly: Avoid ambiguity in your semantic model. Use human-readable, business-friendly names. Avoid abbreviations, acronyms, or technical terms. This improves Copilot’s ability to interpret user intent. Create Meaningful Measures: Define reusable DAX measures for key business metrics (e.g., Revenue, Profit Margin). AI features rely on these to generate insights and summaries. Document Semantic Model objects: Add descriptions and synonyms to your Tables, Columns and measures. This enhances natural language querying and improves Copilot’s contextual understanding. Build an AI Data Schema: prepare your semantic model for AI by utilizing tooling features such as Prep data for AI. Phase 3: Understanding Migration Complexity: Simple to Very Complex Dashboards Not all Tableau dashboards are created equal. The migration strategy should align with dashboard complexity, and the semantic layer approach becomes increasingly valuable as complexity grows. 1. Dashboard Conversion Best Practices Think in "pages" not "sheets": Power BI reports combine multiple visuals per page; group related visuals logically Use slicers for interactivity: Replace Tableau filters with Power BI slicers and filter pane Leverage bookmarks for navigation: Create dynamic report experiences with show/hide containers Simple Complexity Level Category Tableau Feature Power BI Equivalent Microsoft Fabric Enhancements Best Practice Notes Data Model Single custom SQL Power Query for data shaping and ETL. OneLake Shortcuts for unified data access. Use star schema for optimized performance; push logic into the semantic layer rather than visuals. Calculations Basic IF/ELSE, SUM Data Analysis Expressions (DAX) for measures and calculated columns. Copilot for Power BI to assist with DAX creation. Fabric IQ for natural language queries. Centralize calculations in semantic models for consistency and governance. Medium Complexity Level Category Tableau Feature Power BI Equivalent Fabric Enhancements Best Practice Notes Data Model Multiple custom SQL (up to 3) Connect live to databases (Azure Databricks): DirectQuery in Power BI Connect with cloud data sources: Power BI data sources OneLake Shortcuts for unified access without databricks compute cost. Semantic Models can combine multiple sources. Optimize with star schema; Prefer OneLake Shortcuts for performance; avoid heavy transformations in visuals. Calculations Nested IFs, CASE Data Analysis Expressions (DAX) for measures and calculated columns. Copilot for Power BI to assist with DAX creation. Fabric Data Agent for conversational BI. Fabric IQ for natural language queries: Fabric IQ Centralize logic in semantic models; use Copilot for automation and validation; keep calculations reusable. Reporting Tooltip format in Bar and Map visuals Select All/Clear option for Single Select dropdown Standard tooltips offer help tooltips, text, and background formatting. Dynamic tooltip will be able to create the Tooltip page and reuse it in multiple visuals The customization is so much better than the OOB tooltips Create report tooltip pages in Power BI - Power BI | Microsoft Learn Use Clear All Slicers Button. Disable Single Select, Add Clear All Slicers button, Customize the Button and Use the Button Complex Complexity Level Category Tableau Feature Power BI Equivalent Fabric Enhancements Best Practice Notes Data Model Multiple sources Create relationship using more than one column Composite Models in Power BI (DirectQuery + Import) for combining multiple sources, also connect to various cloud services. Dataflows for pre-processing. Power BI allows a relationship between 2 tables based on only one active column. OneLake Shortcuts for unified access without Azure Databricks compute cost; Microsoft Fabric Dataflows Gen2 offers multiple ways to ingest, transform, and load data efficiently. Consolidate sources into semantic models; use Direct Lake for performance; Plan and design data model to comply with star schema supported by Power BI Relationship DAX USERELATIONSHIP DAX for activating relationships in Power BI for a specific calculation Calculations LOD, window functions Data Analysis Expressions (DAX) for measures and calculated columns. Copilot to assist with complex DAX. Fabric IQ Ontology for semantic alignment. Change how visuals interact in a Power BI report. Centralize calculations in semantic layer; use variables in DAX for readability and performance. Fabric Data Agent for a conversational BI. Very Complex Complexity Level Category Tableau Feature Power BI Equivalent Fabric Enhancements Best Practice Notes Data Model Multi-source, Excel, SQL Composite Models in Power BI (DirectQuery + Import) for combining multiple sources, also connect to various cloud services. Dataflows for pre-processing. OneLake Shortcuts for unified access; Connector overview build-in support. Mirroring for real-time sync. Combine multiple sources into well-structured semantic models for consistency and optimized performance. Calculations Predictive logic Data Analysis Expressions (DAX) for measures and calculated columns. Fabric AutoML, ML models, AI Insights, Python/R, Notebook‑based ML (Spark/Scikit‑Learn), Fabric AI Functions, Fabric IQ Ontology Fabric Data Agent for a conversational BI. Centralize logic in semantic models; leverage Copilot for automation and parameter-driven workflows. Prepare for Copilot. 2. Tableau Feature Equivalents Tableau Feature Power BI Equivalent Microsoft Learn Link Calculated Fields DAX Measures DAX Documentation Parameters Field Parameters / Bookmarks Use report readers to change visuals Actions Drillthrough / Bookmarks Drillthrough Tableau Prep Power Query / Dataflows Differences between Dataflow Gen1 and Dataflow Gen2 Tableau Server Power BI Service What is Power BI? Overview of Components and Benefits Phase 4: Governance and Deployment Workspace Planning (Dev / Test / Prod Separation) A proper workspace strategy is essential for governed deployments in Fabric and Power BI. Fabric supports separate Development, Test, and Production stages using Deployment Pipelines, enabling controlled promotions of semantic models, reports, dataflows, notebooks, lakehouses, and other items. You can assign each workspace to a pipeline stage (Dev → Test → Prod) to ensure safe lifecycle management. Sensitivity Labeling (Microsoft Purview Information Protection) Sensitivity labels allow governed classification and protection of data across Fabric items. Sensitivity labels can be applied directly to Fabric items (semantic models, reports, dataflows, etc.) through the item's header flyout or the item settings. Labels from Microsoft Purview Information Protection enforce data access rules and help organizations meet compliance requirements. Endorsement & Certification (Promoted, Certified, Master Data) Endorsement improves discoverability and trust in shared organizational content. Promoted: Item creators mark content as recommended for broader use. Certified: Administrators or authorized reviewers validate content meets organizational quality standards. Master Data: Indicates authoritative single‑source‑of‑truth items such as semantic models or lakehouses. All Fabric items except dashboards can be promoted or certified; data‑containing items can be designated as Master Data. Monitoring & Capacity Planning Determine the appropriate size for fabric capacity when migrating from Tableau to PowerBI. The Fabric SKU Estimator can generate a SKU recommendation (estimate) for your capacity requirements. Ensuring performance and cost efficiency requires ongoing monitoring of your Fabric capacity. Microsoft recommends evaluating workloads using Fabric Capacity Metrics and planning SKU sizes based on real usage. Fabric uses bursting and smoothing to handle spikes while enforcing capacity limits. Monitoring helps identify high compute usage, background refreshes, and interactive workloads to optimize performance. Fabric Data Source Connections (OneLake+ Manage Connections) Microsoft Fabric is designed as an end‑to‑end analytics platform that integrates data from many different source systems into a unified environment powered by OneLake, Data Factory, Real‑Time Analytics, Dataflows , Lakehouses, Warehouses, and Mirrored Databases. The Strategic Advantage: Semantic Layer + Fabric IQ The semantic layer-first approach sets the foundation for the next evolution in enterprise analytics. Fabric IQ (announced at Ignite 2025) is Microsoft's semantic intelligence platform that auto-elevates semantic models into ontologies—structured knowledge graphs that power AI agents, Copilot experiences, and cross-domain data reasoning. What this means for your migration: Semantic models you build today become the foundation for AI-driven analytics tomorrow Data Agents can reason across multiple semantic models, answering questions that span domains Business users transition from "report consumers" to "data explorers" via natural language interfaces Conclusion: Build for the Future, Not Just for Today Migrating from Tableau to Power BI is more than a technology swap—it's an opportunity to re-architect your analytics strategy for the cloud-native, AI-powered era. The semantic layer-first approach requires upfront investment in data modeling, DAX expertise, and Fabric platform adoption. But the payoff is transformative: Consistency: Single source of truth for all business metrics Scalability: Semantic models that serve hundreds of reports and thousands of users Agility: Changes to business logic propagate instantly across the enterprise Future-readiness: Foundation for Fabric IQ, Data Agents, and AI-driven insights Start your migration with the end in mind: not just convert dashboards, but a modern, governed, AI-ready analytics platform that scales with your business. Addressing Key Migration Concerns (1) Why a semantic‑layered model approach is better than recreating Tableau dashboards A semantic‑layered modeling approach is the optimal strategy for migration and is significantly more effective than attempting to recreate Tableau dashboards exactly as they exist. By contrast, Power BI and Fabric encourage a semantic model–first architecture, where all business rules, relationships, calculations, and transformations are centralized in a governed model that serves many dashboards. The approach not only provides consistency and reuse across the enterprise but also ensures that report authors build on a single certified version of the truth. (2) How semantic-layered model approach reduces the constant redesign caused by changing data needs. A semantic‑layered modeling approach directly addresses concern about constant changes and frequent redesigns of dashboards when data evolves. With a semantic layer, changes are absorbed in the model layer—so the logic is updated once and flows automatically into all dependent reports. Combined with Fabric features like OneLake shortcuts, Direct Lake mode, and centralized governance, the semantic layer drastically reduces breakage, minimizes rework, and ensures scalability as data continues to grow and shift. Additional Resources Direct Lake in Microsoft Fabric Create Fabric Data Agents OneLake Shortcuts Write DAX queries with Copilot - DAX Prepare Your Data for AI - Power BI | Microsoft LearnBuilding a Reliable Real Time Data Pipeline with Microsoft Fabric
The Two Pillars That Determine Success Data Quality Cannot Be an Afterthought The most common mistake we see is treating data quality as something to address after the pipeline is running. This approach creates technical debt that compounds over time and erodes trust in your data. Your CDC pipeline will ingest millions of events daily. Without proper validation at each layer, small issues become major problems. A single source system changing a column from integer to string can silently corrupt downstream analytics for days before anyone notices. What you need to implement from day one: Validation at the Bronze layer should focus on structural integrity. Every record landing in your raw layer needs verification that required fields exist, timestamps are valid, and CDC operation types are recognized. The Silver layer is where business validation happens. Here you check referential integrity, apply domain specific rules, and flag anomalies. A customer ID that does not exist in your customer master table needs to be caught here. Schema drift detection deserves special attention. Source systems change without warning. Your pipeline needs to detect these changes before they break downstream processes. The quality score approach works well in practice. Rather than binary pass or fail checks, calculate a quality score for each batch. A score above 95 percent proceeds normally. Between 90 and 95 percent sends a warning. Below 90 percent halts processing. Replication Lag Requires Active Management The second pillar is understanding and managing replication lag. In a real time pipeline, the value of data degrades rapidly with age. A five minute delay might be acceptable for daily reporting but catastrophic for fraud detection or inventory management. Lag accumulates at multiple points in your pipeline. There is capture lag between when a change occurs in the source database and when the CDC mechanism detects it. Processing lag occurs within Eventstream as events are transformed and routed. Ingestion lag happens between Eventstream and your destination tables. Each component adds latency, and under load, these delays compound. Building effective lag management: Monitor each stage independently. Knowing your total lag is useful, but knowing where lag accumulates is actionable. Establish baselines before setting alerts. Collect at least two weeks of baseline metrics before configuring alert thresholds. Implement automatic recovery procedures. When lag exceeds acceptable thresholds, your system should respond without waiting for human intervention. Operational Foundations You Cannot Skip Capacity Planning Prevents Expensive Surprises Microsoft Fabric uses a capacity unit model where all workloads draw from a shared pool. Underprovisioning leads to throttling and failed jobs. Overprovisioning wastes budget. Start with realistic estimates based on your data volumes. The F4 SKU handles most development and small production workloads comfortably. Medium deployments with 10 to 25 sources typically need F8. Large enterprise deployments should start at F16 and scale based on observed utilization. Watch for sustained utilization above 70 percent as a signal to consider scaling up. Network Security Shapes Your Architecture For production deployments handling sensitive data, network isolation is not optional. Private endpoints keep traffic on the Microsoft backbone network, eliminating exposure to the public internet. Plan your network architecture before building pipelines. Retrofitting private connectivity into an existing deployment is significantly more complex than designing it from the start. Logging Enables Troubleshooting When something goes wrong at 2 AM, your ability to diagnose the problem depends entirely on what information you captured beforehand. Centralized logging using Eventhouse gives you a queryable record of everything that happened across your pipeline. Log more than you think you need initially. Storage is inexpensive compared to the cost of troubleshooting without adequate information. Key Decisions You Need to Make Before proceeding with implementation, your team should align on several important decisions. Data retention requirements affect storage costs and query performance. How long do you need to keep Bronze layer data versus aggregated Gold layer data? Recovery time objectives determine how you architect for resilience. If the pipeline can be down for four hours without business impact, your approach differs from a scenario where even 15 minutes causes significant problems. Who owns data quality shapes how you design validation and alerting. If source system teams are responsible, your pipeline detects and reports. If your team owns quality, you implement correction and enrichment. Moving Forward The patterns and practices in this guide reflect lessons learned from real implementations. Every organization has unique requirements, but the fundamentals of data quality, lag management, capacity planning, and operational readiness apply universally. Start with the foundations. A pipeline that handles one source reliably is more valuable than one that theoretically handles fifty but fails unpredictably. Build observability from day one. Automate responses to common problems. Document what you learn. Your data is a strategic asset. The pipeline that delivers it reliably deserves the same careful engineering you would apply to any critical business system.A Technical Implementation Guide for Multi-Store Retail Environments
Understanding the Problem Space When organizations first approach multi-source data ingestion, they typically start with explicit configuration. Each database connection is defined individually, each table mapping is specified, and each destination partition is created manually. This works reasonably well for five or ten sources. It becomes painful at twenty. It becomes nearly unmanageable at fifty or more. The operational cost manifests in several ways. Every new store requires a ticket to the data engineering team. Someone must configure the connection, verify the schema compatibility, set up the ingestion pipeline, create the destination structures, and validate the data flow. In a fast-growing retail operation, this creates a bottleneck that delays time-to-insight for new locations. Beyond the immediate operational burden, there is also the risk of configuration drift. When each source is configured individually, small inconsistencies creep in over time. One store might have slightly different table names. Another might be ingesting an extra column that was added during a schema migration. These inconsistencies compound, making the overall system harder to maintain and debug. The solution presented here eliminates most of this manual work by implementing two complementary patterns: automatic source detection through regex-based CDC configuration, and dynamic partition creation through Delta Lake's native capabilities. Architecture Overview The proposed architecture places Debezium as the CDC engine, reading from PostgreSQL databases and publishing change events to Azure Event Hubs. Fabric EventStream consumes these events and writes them to a Delta Lake table in the Lakehouse. The key insight is that neither Debezium nor Delta Lake requires explicit enumeration of every data source. Both can operate on patterns rather than explicit lists. At the source layer, Debezium connects to PostgreSQL and monitors the write-ahead log for changes. Rather than configuring a separate connector for each store database, a single connector is configured with a regex pattern that matches all store databases. When a new database is created that matches this pattern, Debezium automatically begins capturing its changes without any configuration update. At the destination layer, Delta Lake tables are defined with partition columns but without explicit partition values. When a record arrives with a previously unseen partition value, Delta Lake automatically creates the necessary directory structure and begins writing data to the new partition. No DDL statement is required, no manual intervention is needed. The combination of these two behaviors creates an end-to-end pipeline where adding a new store database is as simple as creating the database itself. Everything downstream happens automatically. Implementation Details Configuring Debezium for Automatic Source Detection The critical configuration element in Debezium is the database include list parameter. Rather than specifying each database explicitly, this parameter accepts a regular expression that defines which databases should be monitored. For a retail environment where store databases follow a naming convention such as store_001, store_002, and so forth, the configuration would specify a pattern like store_.* as the include list. This pattern matches any database whose name begins with store_ followed by any characters. When the DBA creates store_058, Debezium detects this new database during its periodic metadata refresh and automatically begins capturing changes from it. The connector configuration should also specify which tables within each database to monitor. In most retail scenarios, the schema is standardized across all stores, so this can be a fixed list such as public.transactions, public.inventory, and public.products. If schema variations exist between stores, additional filtering logic may be required, but this is generally a sign that the source systems need standardization rather than accommodation of inconsistency. The topic routing configuration is equally important. All CDC events should be routed to a single Event Hubs topic, with the store identifier included in the message payload. This allows a single EventStream to process all store data while preserving the ability to identify which store each record originated from. The source metadata that Debezium includes with each change event contains the database name, which serves as the natural store identifier. Initial snapshot behavior must be considered carefully. When Debezium detects a new database, it will perform an initial snapshot to capture the current state before beginning to track incremental changes. For a store with substantial historical data, this snapshot may take anywhere from a few minutes to several hours. During this period, the connector is occupied with the snapshot and may exhibit increased latency for change events from other databases. Scheduling new store database creation during off-peak hours helps mitigate this impact. Configuring Delta Lake for Dynamic Partitioning Delta Lake supports dynamic partition creation as a default behavior. When a table is created with partition columns specified, any INSERT operation that includes a previously unseen partition value will automatically create the corresponding partition directory. The table definition should include the store identifier as the primary partition column. A secondary partition on date is typically advisable for managing data lifecycle and optimizing query performance. The combination of store_id and event_date provides a natural organization that supports both store-specific queries and time-range queries efficiently. The table should be created with automatic optimization enabled. The autoOptimize.optimizeWrite property causes Delta Lake to automatically coalesce small files during write operations, reducing the small file problem that frequently plagues streaming ingestion workloads. The autoOptimize.autoCompact property enables background compaction of files that have accumulated between optimization runs. When EventStream writes a record with store_id equal to store_058 and this value has never been seen before, Delta Lake creates the partition directory structure automatically. The first write creates the directory, and subsequent writes append to files within that directory. From the perspective of downstream queries, the new store's data is immediately available without any schema changes or administrative intervention. EventStream Processing Logic The EventStream configuration bridges the gap between Event Hubs and the Lakehouse. It must parse the Debezium change event format, extract the relevant fields including the store identifier, and route the data to the appropriate Delta table. The transformation logic should extract the store identifier from the source metadata section of the Debezium payload. This is typically found at a path like source.db within the JSON structure. The operation type indicating whether the change is an insert, update, or delete should be preserved for downstream CDC merge processing. A derived column for the event date should be computed from the event timestamp. This serves as the secondary partition key and enables time-based data management. The date extraction should use the source system timestamp rather than the ingestion timestamp to ensure that data is partitioned based on when the business event occurred rather than when it was processed. The destination configuration specifies the Delta table and the partition columns. EventStream handles the actual write operations, and Delta Lake handles the partition management automatically based on the values present in each record. Best Practices for Production Deployment Naming Convention Enforcement The automatic detection pattern is only as reliable as the naming convention it depends on. Before implementing this architecture, establish and enforce a strict naming convention for store databases. Document the convention, communicate it to all teams that provision databases, and implement validation checks in the database provisioning process. The naming convention should be simple and unambiguous. A pattern like store_NNN where NNN is a zero-padded three-digit number provides clear structure and allows for up to 999 stores without format changes. Avoid conventions that might conflict with other databases or that include characters with special meaning in regex patterns. Schema Standardization Automatic source detection assumes that all detected sources share a compatible schema. If store_058 has different table structures than store_001, the downstream processing will fail or produce incorrect results. Schema standardization must be enforced at the source system level before relying on automatic detection. Implement schema validation as part of the store database provisioning process. When a new store database is created, it should be created from a template that guarantees schema compatibility. If schema migrations are necessary, they should be applied uniformly across all store databases before being reflected in the CDC configuration. Partition Key Selection The choice of partition keys has significant implications for both storage efficiency and query performance. The store identifier is the natural first-level partition because it provides the strongest cardinality and aligns with common query patterns such as analyzing a specific store's performance. Date as a secondary partition enables efficient time-range queries and simplifies data lifecycle management. Retention policies can be implemented by dropping old date partitions rather than scanning and deleting individual records. However, the combination of store and date partitions can produce a large number of partition directories. With 100 stores and 365 days of retained data, the table would have 36,500 partitions. While Delta Lake handles this reasonably well, query planning overhead increases with partition count. Consider using month rather than date as the secondary partition if the total partition count becomes problematic. This reduces the partition count by a factor of roughly 30 while still enabling reasonably efficient time-based queries and lifecycle management. Monitoring and Alerting Automatic detection reduces operational burden but does not eliminate the need for monitoring. Implement alerting for several key scenarios. First, monitor for new store detection. While the system handles new stores automatically, operations teams should be notified when a new store begins ingesting data. This serves as a sanity check that the detection is working and provides visibility into the growth of the system. Second, monitor for schema compatibility failures. If a new database is detected but its schema does not match expectations, the CDC process may fail or produce malformed data. Alerting on processing errors helps catch these issues quickly. Third, monitor for snapshot completion. When a new store database triggers an initial snapshot, track the snapshot progress and completion. Extended snapshot times may indicate unusually large source tables or performance issues that warrant investigation. Fourth, monitor partition growth. While dynamic partitioning is convenient, runaway partition creation can indicate a problem such as incorrect store identifiers being generated. Alert if the number of distinct store partitions grows faster than expected based on the known rate of new store openings. Initial Snapshot Planning The initial snapshot that occurs when a new database is detected can be resource-intensive for both the source database and the CDC infrastructure. Plan for this by establishing a new store onboarding window during off-peak hours when the impact of snapshot processing is minimized. Consider implementing a two-phase onboarding process for stores with large historical datasets. In the first phase, configure the database but exclude it from the Debezium include pattern. Perform a bulk historical load using batch processing, which can be throttled and scheduled more flexibly than the streaming snapshot. In the second phase, add the database to the include pattern to begin capturing incremental changes. This approach reduces the load on the streaming infrastructure while still achieving complete data capture. Capacity Planning Dynamic detection and partitioning enable easy scaling in terms of configuration, but the underlying infrastructure must still be sized appropriately. Event Hubs throughput units must accommodate the aggregate event volume from all stores. Fabric capacity units must handle the combined processing load of EventStream and Delta Lake operations. Develop a capacity model that estimates resource requirements per store. Multiply by the current store count plus a growth buffer to determine infrastructure sizing. Review and adjust this model as actual usage patterns become clear. Risk Assessment and Mitigation Uncontrolled Source Proliferation The convenience of automatic detection carries a risk of unintended sources being captured. If the naming convention is not strictly enforced, or if the regex pattern is too broad, databases that should not be ingested may be detected and processed. Mitigation involves implementing strict naming convention governance and using precise regex patterns. The pattern should be as specific as possible while still accommodating legitimate variations. Consider implementing a whitelist in addition to the pattern match, where new databases matching the pattern are flagged for approval before ingestion begins. This adds a manual step but provides a safety checkpoint. Schema Drift Between Sources Over time, individual store databases may drift from the standard schema due to local modifications, failed migrations, or version inconsistencies. When the CDC process encounters unexpected schema elements, it may fail or produce incorrect data. Mitigation requires implementing schema validation at both the source and destination. At the source, periodic schema audits should compare each store database against the canonical schema and flag deviations. At the destination, schema evolution policies in Delta Lake should be configured to reject incompatible changes rather than silently accepting them. The merge schema option should be used cautiously and only when schema evolution is intentional. Partition Explosion Dynamic partition creation can lead to an excessive number of partitions if the partition key has unexpectedly high cardinality or if erroneous data introduces spurious partition values. A misconfigured pipeline might create thousands of partitions, degrading query performance and complicating data management. Mitigation involves implementing partition count monitoring with alerts at defined thresholds. Additionally, validate partition key values before writing to Delta Lake. If a store identifier does not match the expected format, reject the record or route it to an error table for investigation rather than creating an erroneous partition. CDC Lag During Snapshot When a new database triggers an initial snapshot, the Debezium connector dedicates resources to reading the full table contents. During this period, change events from other databases may experience increased latency. In severe cases, the replication slot lag may grow to problematic levels. Mitigation involves scheduling new database provisioning during low-activity periods, sizing the CDC infrastructure with headroom for snapshot operations, and monitoring replication slot lag with alerts at defined thresholds. For very large initial loads, consider the two-phase onboarding approach described earlier. Event Hubs Partition Affinity Event Hubs uses partitions to parallelize message processing. If all messages are routed to a single partition, throughput is limited to what that partition can handle. If messages are distributed across partitions without regard to ordering requirements, related events may be processed out of order. Mitigation involves configuring the Debezium producer to use the store identifier as the partition key. This ensures that all events for a given store are routed to the same Event Hubs partition, preserving ordering within each store while distributing load across partitions for different stores. The number of Event Hubs partitions should be set high enough to accommodate the expected number of stores with room for growth. Unlike some properties, partition count cannot be increased after the Event Hub is created. Orphaned Replication Slots If a store database is decommissioned but the replication slot is not cleaned up, PostgreSQL continues to retain write-ahead log segments for the orphaned slot. Over time, this can fill the disk and cause database outages. Mitigation requires implementing a decommissioning procedure that includes replication slot cleanup. Monitor for inactive replication slots and alert when a slot has not been read from in an extended period. Consider implementing automatic slot cleanup for slots that have been inactive beyond a defined threshold, though this should be done cautiously to avoid accidentally removing slots that are temporarily inactive due to maintenance. Operational Procedures Adding a New Store The procedure for adding a new store is intentionally minimal. The DBA creates the store database following the established naming convention. The database should be created from the standard template to ensure schema compatibility. Within minutes of database creation, Debezium detects the new database and begins the initial snapshot. Operations teams receive a notification of the new store detection. The snapshot progresses, with completion typically occurring within 30 minutes for a standard store data volume. Once the snapshot completes, incremental CDC begins. The first records arriving at the Lakehouse trigger automatic partition creation. From this point forward, the new store's data is fully integrated into the analytics platform with no additional intervention required. Removing a Store Store removal requires more deliberate action than store addition. First, stop ingesting new data by either renaming the database to no longer match the include pattern or by dropping the database entirely. Second, drop the replication slot associated with the store to prevent WAL retention issues. Third, decide whether to retain or purge historical data in the Lakehouse. If historical data should be retained, no action is needed at the Lakehouse level. The partition remains but simply receives no new data. If historical data should be purged, drop the partition using Delta Lake's partition drop capability. This removes the data files and the partition metadata in a single atomic operation. Handling Schema Changes Schema changes require coordination across all store databases and the downstream processing logic. Minor additive changes such as new nullable columns can often be handled through Delta Lake's schema evolution capabilities. The merge schema option allows new columns to be added automatically when encountered. Breaking changes such as column renames, type changes, or column removals require a more deliberate migration process. First, update the downstream processing logic to handle both the old and new schemas. Deploy this change and verify it works with existing data. Then, apply the schema change to source databases in a rolling fashion. Finally, once all sources have been migrated, remove support for the old schema from the processing logic. Disaster Recovery The architecture provides several recovery options depending on the failure scenario. If Event Hubs experiences an outage, Debezium buffers changes locally and resumes publishing when connectivity is restored. The replication slot ensures no changes are lost during the outage, though extended outages may cause WAL accumulation on the source database. If Fabric experiences an outage, events accumulate in Event Hubs up to the retention period. Once Fabric recovers, EventStream resumes processing from its last checkpoint, catching up on accumulated events. The Delta Lake table remains consistent due to its transactional nature. If a source database is lost, recovery depends on backup strategy. The Lakehouse contains a copy of all ingested data, which can serve as a read-only recovery source. Full database recovery requires restoring from PostgreSQL backups. Dynamic partitioning and automatic source detection transform multi-store data ingestion from an operational burden into a largely self-managing system. The combination of Debezium's pattern-based database detection with Delta Lake's dynamic partition creation eliminates most manual configuration work while maintaining the flexibility to accommodate growth. The implementation requires careful attention to naming conventions, schema standardization, and monitoring. The risks are real but manageable with appropriate governance and operational procedures. For organizations operating at scale with dozens or hundreds of similar data sources, this architecture provides a sustainable path to unified analytics without proportional growth in operational overhead. The key principle underlying this approach is that systems should adapt to data rather than requiring data to conform to rigid system configurations. By designing for automatic detection and dynamic accommodation, the data platform becomes a utility that business operations can leverage without constant engineering involvement. This shift from explicit configuration to pattern-based adaptation is essential for organizations seeking to derive value from data at scale.Approaches to Integrating Azure Databricks with Microsoft Fabric: The Better Together Story!
Azure Databricks and Microsoft Fabric can be combined to create a unified and scalable analytics ecosystem. This document outlines eight distinct integration approaches, each accompanied by step-by-step implementation guidance and key design considerations. These methods are not prescriptive—your cloud architecture team can choose the integration strategy that best aligns with your organization’s governance model, workload requirements and platform preferences. Whether you prioritize centralized orchestration, direct data access, or seamless reporting, the flexibility of these options allows you to tailor the solution to your specific needs.Azure Databricks & Fabric Disaster Recovery: The Better Together Story
Author's: Amudha Palani amudhapalani, Eric Kwashie ekwashie, Peter Lo PeterLo and Rafia Aqil Rafia_Aqil Disaster recovery (DR) is a critical component of any cloud-native data analytics platform, ensuring business continuity even during rare regional outages caused by natural disasters, infrastructure failures, or other disruptions. Identify Business Critical Workloads Before designing any disaster recovery strategy, organizations must first identify which workloads are truly business‑critical and require regional redundancy. Not all Databricks or Fabric processes need full DR protection; instead, customers should evaluate the operational impact of downtime, data freshness requirements, regulatory obligations, SLAs, and dependencies across upstream and downstream systems. By classifying workloads into tiers and aligning DR investments accordingly, customers ensure they protect what matters most without over‑engineering the platform. Azure Databricks Azure Databricks requires a customer‑driven approach to disaster recovery, where organizations are responsible for replicating workspaces, data, infrastructure components, and security configurations across regions. Full System Failover (Active-Passive) Strategy A comprehensive approach that replicates all dependent services to the secondary region. Implementation requirements include: Infrastructure Components: Replicate Azure services (ADLS, Key Vault, SQL databases) using Terraform Deploy network infrastructure (subnets) in the secondary region Establish data synchronization mechanisms Data Replication Strategy: Use Deep Clone for Delta tables rather than geo-redundant storage Implement periodic synchronization jobs using Delta's incremental replication Measure data transfer results using time travel syntax Workspace Asset Synchronization: Co-deploy cluster configurations, notebooks, jobs, and permissions using CI/CD Utilize Terraform and SCIM for identity and access management Keep job concurrencies at zero in the secondary region to prevent execution Fully Redundant (Active-Active) Strategy The most sophisticated approach where all transactions are processed in multiple regions simultaneously. While providing maximum resilience, this strategy: Requires complex data synchronization between regions Incurs highest operational costs due to duplicate processing Typically needed only for mission-critical workloads with zero-tolerance for downtime Can be implemented as partial active-active, processing most workload in primary with subset in secondary Enabling Disaster Recovery Create a secondary workspace in a paired region. Use CI/CD to keep Workspace Assets Synchronized continuously. Requirement Approach Tools Cluster Configurations Co-deploy to both regions as code Terraform Code (Notebooks, Libraries, SQL) Co-deploy with CI/CD pipelines Git, Azure DevOps, GitHub Actions Jobs Co-deploy with CI/CD, set concurrency to zero in secondary Databricks Asset Bundles, Terraform Permissions (Users, Groups, ACLs) Use IdP/SCIM and infrastructure as code Terraform, SCIM Secrets Co-deploy using secret management Terraform, Azure Key Vault Table Metadata Co-deploy with CI/CD workflows Git, Terraform Cloud Services (ADLS, Network) Co-deploy infrastructure Terraform Update your orchestrator (ADF, Fabric pipelines, etc.) to include a simple region toggle to reroute job execution. Replicate all dependent services (Key Vault, Storage accounts, SQL DB). Implement Delta “Deep Clone” synchronization jobs to keep datasets continuously aligned between regions. Introduce an application‑level “Sync Tool” that redirects: data ingestion compute execution Enable parallel processing in both regions for selected or all workloads. Use bi‑directional synchronization for Delta data to maintain consistency across regions. For performance and cost control, run most workloads in primary and only subset workloads in secondary to keep it warm. Implement Three-Pillar DR Design Primary Workspace: Your production Databricks environment running normal operations Secondary Workspace: A standby Databricks workspace in a different(paired) Azure region that remains ready to take over if the primary fails. This architecture ensures business continuity while optimizing costs by keeping the secondary workspace dormant until needed. The DR solution is built on three fundamental pillars that work together to provide comprehensive protection: 1. Infrastructure Provisioning (Terraform) The infrastructure layer creates and manages all Azure resources required for disaster recovery using Infrastructure as Code (Terraform). What It Creates: Secondary Resource Group: A dedicated resource group in your paired DR region (e.g., if primary is in East US, secondary might be in West US 2) Secondary Databricks Workspace: A standby Databricks workspace with the same SKU as your primary, ready to receive failover traffic DR Storage Account: An ADLS Gen2 storage account that serves as the backup destination for your critical data Monitoring Infrastructure: Azure Monitor Log Analytics workspace and alert action groups to track DR health Protection Locks: Management locks to prevent accidental deletion of critical DR resources Key Design Principle: The Terraform configuration references your existing primary workspace without modifying it. It only creates new resources in the secondary region, ensuring your production environment remains untouched during setup. 2. Data Synchronization (Delta Notebooks) The data synchronization layer ensures your critical data is continuously backed up to the secondary region. How It Works: The solution uses a Databricks notebook that runs in your primary workspace on a scheduled basis. This notebook: Connects to Backup Storage: Uses Unity Catalog with Azure Managed Identity for secure, credential-free authentication to the secondary storage account Identifies Critical Tables: Reads from a configuration list you define (sales data, customer data, inventory, financial transactions, etc.) Performs Deep Clone: Uses Delta Lake's native CLONE functionality to create exact copies of your tables in the backup storage Tracks Sync Status: Logs each synchronization operation, tracks row counts, and reports on data freshness Authentication Flow: The synchronization process leverages Unity Catalog's managed identity capabilities: An existing Access Connector for Unity Catalog is granted "Storage Blob Data Contributor" permissions on the backup storage. Storage credentials are created in Databricks that reference this Access Connector. The notebook uses these credentials transparently—no storage keys or secrets are required. What Gets Synced: You define which tables are critical to your business operations. The notebook creates backup copies including: Full table data and schema Table partitioning structure Delta transaction logs for point-in-time recovery 3. Failover Automation (Python Scripts) The failover automation layer orchestrates the switch from primary to secondary workspace when disaster strikes. Microsoft Fabric Microsoft Fabric provides built‑in disaster recovery capabilities designed to keep analytics and Power BI experiences available during regional outages. Fabric simplifies continuity for reporting workloads, while still requiring customer planning for deeper data and workload replication. Power BI Business Continuity Power BI, now integrated into Fabric, provides automatic disaster recovery as a default offering: No opt-in required: DR capabilities are automatically included. Azure storage geo-redundant replication: Ensures backup instances exist in other regions. Read-only access during disasters: Semantic models, reports, and dashboards remain accessible. Always supported: BCDR for Power BI remains active regardless of OneLake DR setting. Microsoft Fabric Fabric's cross-region DR uses a shared responsibility model between Microsoft and customers: Microsoft's Responsibilities: Ensure baseline infrastructure and platform services availability Maintain Azure regional pairings for geo-redundancy. Provide DR capabilities for Power BI as default. Customer Responsibilities: Enable disaster recovery settings for capacities Set up secondary capacity and workspaces in paired regions Replicate data and configurations Enabling Disaster Recovery Organizations can enable BCDR through the Admin portal under Capacity settings: Navigate to Admin portal → Capacity settings Select the appropriate Fabric Capacity Access Disaster Recovery configuration Enable the disaster recovery toggle Critical Timing Considerations: 30-day minimum activation period: Once enabled, the setting remains active for at least 30 days and cannot be reverted. 72-hour activation window: Initial enablement can take up to 72 hours to become fully effective. Azure Databricks & Microsoft Fabric DR Considerations Building a resilient analytics platform requires understanding how disaster recovery responsibilities differ between Azure Databricks and Microsoft Fabric. While both platforms operate within Azure’s regional architecture, their DR models, failover behaviors, and customer responsibilities are fundamentally different. Recovery Procedures Procedure Databricks Fabric Failover Stop workloads, update routing, resume in secondary region. Microsoft initiates failover; customers restore services in DR capacity. Restore to Primary Stop secondary workloads, replicate data/code back, test, resume production. Recreate workspaces and items in new capacity; restore Lakehouse and Warehouse data. Asset Syncing Use CI/CD and Terraform to sync clusters, jobs, notebooks, permissions. Use Git integration and pipelines to sync notebooks and pipelines; manually restore Lakehouses. Business Considerations Consideration Databricks Fabric Control Customers manage DR strategy, failover timing, and asset replication. Microsoft manages failover; customers restore services post-failover. Regional Dependencies Must ensure secondary region has sufficient capacity and services. DR only available in Azure regions with Fabric support and paired regions. Power BI Continuity Not applicable. Power BI offers built-in BCDR with read-only access to semantic models and reports. Activation Timeline Immediate upon configuration. DR setting takes up to 72 hours to activate; 30-day wait before changes allowed.Overload to Optimal: Tuning Microsoft Fabric Capacity
Co-Authored by: Daya Ram, Sr. Cloud Solutions Architect and Rafia Aqil, Could Solutions Architect Optimizing Microsoft Fabric capacity is both a performance and cost exercise. By diagnosing workloads, tuning cluster and Spark settings, and applying data best practices, teams can reduce run times, avoid throttling, and lower total cost of ownership—without compromising SLAs. Use Fabric’s built-in observability (Monitoring Hub, Capacity Metrics, Spark UI) to identify hot spots and then apply cluster- and data-level remediations. Capacity Planning For capacity planning and sizing guidance, see Plan your capacity size. Selecting the wrong SKU can lead to two major issues: Over-provisioning: Paying for resources you don’t need. Under-provisioning: Struggling with performance bottlenecks and failed jobs. To simplify this process, Microsoft provides the Fabric SKU Estimator, a powerful tool designed to help organizations accurately size their capacity based on real-world usage patterns. Run the SKU Estimator before onboarding new workloads or scaling existing ones. Combine its recommendations with monitoring tools like Fabric Capacity Metrics to validate performance and adjust as needed. Options to Diagnose Capacity Issues 1) Monitoring Hub — Start with the Story of the Run What to use it for: Browse Spark activity across applications (notebooks, Spark Job Definitions, and pipelines). Quickly surface long‑running or anomalous runs; view read/write bytes, idle time, core allocation, and utilization. How to use it From the Fabric portal, open Monitoring (Monitor Hub). Select a Notebook or Spark Job Definition to run and choose Historical Runs. Inspect the Run Duration chart; click on a run to see read/write bytes, idle time, core allocation, overall utilization, and other Spark metrics. What to look for Use the guide: application detail monitoring to review and monitor your application. 2) Capacity Metrics App — Measure the Whole Environment What to use it for: Review capacity-wide utilization and system events (overloads, queueing); compare utilization across time windows and identify sustained peaks. How to use it Open the Microsoft Fabric Capacity Metrics app for your capacity. Review the Compute page (ribbon charts, utilization trends) and the System events tab to see overload or throttling windows. Use the Timepoint page to drill into a 30‑second interval and see which operations consumed the most compute. What to look for Use the Troubleshooting guide: Monitor and identify capacity usage to pinpoint top CU‑consuming items. 3) Spark UI — Diagnose at Deeper Level Why it matters: Spark UI exposes skew, shuffle, memory pressure, and long stages. Use it after Monitoring Hub/Capacity Metrics to pinpoint the problematic job. Key tabs to inspect Stages: uneven task durations (data skew), heavy shuffle read/write, large input/output volumes. Executors: storage memory, task time (GC), shuffle metrics. High GC or frequent spills indicate memory tuning is needed. Storage: which RDDs/cached tables occupy memory; any disk spill. Jobs: long‑running jobs and gaps in the timeline (driver compilation, non‑Spark code, driver overload). What to look for Set via environment Spark properties or session config. Data skew, Memory usage, High/Low Shuffles: Adjust Apache Spark settings: i.e. spark.ms.autotune.enabled, spark.task.cpus and spark.sql.shuffle.partitions. Remediation and Optimization Suggestions A) Cluster & Workspace Settings Runtime & Native Execution Engine (NEE) Use Fabric Runtime 1.3 (Spark 3.5, Delta 3.2) and enable the Native Execution Engine to boost performance; enable at the environment level under Spark compute → Acceleration. Starter Pools vs. Custom Pools Starter Pool: prehydrated, medium‑size pools; fast session starts, good for dev/quick runs. Custom Pools: size nodes, enable autoscale, dynamic executors. Create via workspace Spark Settings (requires capacity admin to enable workspace customization). High Concurrency Session Sharing Enable High Concurrency to share Spark Sessions across notebooks (and pipelines) to reduce session startup latency and cost; use session tags in pipelines to group notebooks. Autotune for Spark Enable Autotune (spark.ms.autotune.enabled = true) to auto‑adjust per‑query: spark.sql.shuffle.partitions Spark.sql.autoBroadcastJoinThreshold spark.sql.files.maxPartitionBytes. Autotune is disabled by default and is in preview; enable per environment or session. B) Data‑level best practices Microsoft Fabric offers several approaches to maintain optimal file sizes in Delta tables, review documentation here: Table Compaction - Microsoft Fabric. Intelligent Cache Enabled by default (Runtime 1.1/1.2) for Spark pools: caches frequently read files at node level for Delta/Parquet/CSV; improves subsequent read performance and TCO. OPTIMIZE & Z‑Order Run OPTIMIZE regularly to rewrite files and improve file layout. V‑Order V‑Order (disabled by default in new workspaces) can accelerate reads for read‑heavy workloads; enable via spark.sql.parquet.vorder.default = true. Vacuum Run VACUUM to remove unreferenced files (stale data); default retention is 7 days; align retention across OneLake to control storage costs and maintain time travel. Collaboration & Next Steps Engage Data Engineering Team to Define an Optimization Playbook Start with reviewing capacity sizing guidance, cluster‑level optimizations (runtime/NEE, pools, concurrency, Autotune) and then target data improvements (Z‑order, compaction, caching, query refactors). Triage: Monitor Hub → Capacity Metrics → Spark UI to map workloads and identify high‑impact jobs, and workloads causing throttling. Schedule: Operationalize maintenance: OPTIMIZE (full or selective) during off‑peak windows; enable Auto Compaction for micro‑batch/streaming writes; add VACUUM to your cadence with agreed retention. Add regular code review sessions to ensure consistent performance patterns. Fix: Adjust pool sizing or concurrency; enable Autotune; tune shuffle partitions; refactor problematic queries; re‑run compaction. Verify: Re‑run the job and change, i.e. reduced run time, lower shuffle, improved utilization.From Bronze to Gold: Data Quality Strategies for ETL in Microsoft Fabric
Introduction Data fuels analytics, machine learning, and AI but only if it’s trustworthy. Most organizations struggle with inconsistent schemas, nulls, data drift, or unexpected upstream changes that silently break dashboards, models, and business logic. Microsoft Fabric provides a unified analytics platform with OneLake, pipelines, notebooks, and governance capabilities. When combined with Great Expectations, an open-source data quality framework, Fabric becomes a powerful environment for enforcing data quality at scale. In this article, we explore how to implement enterprise-ready, parameterized data validation inside Fabric notebooks using Great Expectations including row-count drift detection, schema checks, primary-key uniqueness, and time-series batch validation. A quick reminder: ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) is the process of pulling raw data from source systems, applying business logic and quality validations, and delivering clean, curated datasets for analytics and AI. While ETL spans the full Medallion architecture, this guide focuses specifically on data quality checks in the Bronze layer using the NYC Taxi sample dataset. 🔗 Full implementation is available in my GitHub repository: sallydabbahmsft/Data-Quality-Checks-in-Microsoft-Fabric: Data Quality Checks in Microsoft Fabric Why Data Quality Matters More Than Ever? AI and analytics initiatives fail not because of model quality but because the underlying data is inaccurate, incomplete, or inconsistent. Organizations adopting Microsoft Fabric often ask: How can we validate data as it lands in Bronze? How do we detect schema changes before they break downstream pipelines? How do we prevent silent failures, anomalies, and drift? How do we standardize data quality checks across multiple tables and pipelines? Great Expectations provides a unified, testable, automation-friendly way to answer these questions. Great Expectations in Fabric Great Expectations (GX) is an open-source library for: ✔ Declarative data quality rules ("expectations") ✔ Automated validation during ETL ✔ Rich documentation and reporting ✔ Batch-based validation for time-series or large datasets ✔ Integration with Python, Spark, SQL, and cloud data platforms Fabric notebooks now support Great Expectations natively (via PySpark), enabling engineering teams to: Build reusable DQ suites Parameterize expectations by pipeline Validate full datasets or daily partitions Integrate validation into Fabric pipelines and alerting Data Quality Across the Medallion Architecture This solution follows the Medallion Architecture, with validation at every layer. This pipeline follows a Medallion Architecture, moving data through the Bronze, Silver, and Gold layers while enforcing data quality checks at every stage. 📘 P.S. Fabric also supports this via built-in Medallion task flows: Task flows overview - Microsoft Fabric | Microsoft Learn 🥉Bronze Layer: Ingestion & Validation Ingest raw source data into Bronze without transformations. Run foundational DQ checks to ensure structural integrity. Bronze DQ answers: ➡ Did the data arrive correctly? 🥈Silver Layer: Transformation & Validation Clean, standardize, and enrich Bronze data. Validate business rules, schema consistency, reference values, and more. Silver DQ answers: ➡ Is the data accurate and logically correct? 🥇 Gold Layer: Enrichment & Consumption Produce curated, analytics-ready datasets. Validate metrics, aggregates, and business KPIs. Gold DQ answers: ➡ Can executives trust the numbers? Recommended Data Quality Validations: Bronze Layer (Raw Ingestion) Ingestion Volume & Row Drift – Validate total row count and detect unexpected volume drops or spikes. Schema & Data Type Compliance – Ensure the table structure and column data types match the expected schema. Null / Empty Column Checks – Identify missing or empty values in required fields. Primary Key Uniqueness – Detect duplicate records based on the defined composite or natural key. Silver Layer (Cleaned & Standardized Data) Reference & Domain Value Validation – Confirm that values match valid categories, lookups, or reference datasets. Business Rule Enforcement – Validate logic constraints (e.g., StartDate <= EndDate, percentages within range). Anomaly / Outlier Detection – Identify unusual patterns or values that deviate from historical behavior. Post-Standardization Deduplication – Ensure standardized and enriched records no longer contain duplicates. Gold Layer (Curated, Business-Ready Data) Metric & Aggregation Consistency – Validate totals, ratios, rollups, and other aggregated metrics. KPI Threshold Monitoring – Trigger alerts when KPIs exceed defined thresholds. Data / Feature Drift Detection (for ML) – Monitor changes in distributions across time. Cross-System Consistency Checks – Compare business metrics across internal systems to ensure alignment. Implementing Data Quality with Great Expectations in Fabric Step 1 - Read data from Lakehouse (parametrized): lakehouse_name = "Bronze" table_name = "NYC Taxi - Green" query = f"SELECT * FROM {lakehouse_name}.`{table_name}`" df = spark.sql(query) Step 2 - Create and Register a Suite: context = gx.get_context() suite = context.suites.add( gx.ExpectationSuite(name="nyc_bronze_suite") ) Step 3 - Add Bronze Layer Expectations (Reusable Function): import great_expectations as gx def add_bronze_expectations( suite: gx.ExpectationSuite, primary_key_columns: list[str], required_columns: list[str], expected_schema: list[str], expected_row_count: int | None = None, max_row_drift_pct: float = 0.2, ) -> gx.ExpectationSuite: # 1. Ingestion Count & Row Drift if expected_row_count is not None: min_rows = int(expected_row_count * (1 - max_row_drift_pct)) max_rows = int(expected_row_count * (1 + max_row_drift_pct)) row_count_expectation = gx.expectations.ExpectTableRowCountToBeBetween( min_value=min_rows, max_value=max_rows, ) suite.add_expectation(expectation=row_count_expectation) # 2. Schema Compliance schema_expectation = gx.expectations.ExpectTableColumnsToMatchSet( column_set=expected_schema, exact_match=True, ) suite.add_expectation(expectation=schema_expectation) # 3. Required columns: NOT NULL for col in required_columns: not_null_expectation = gx.expectations.ExpectColumnValuesToNotBeNull( column=col ) suite.add_expectation(expectation=not_null_expectation) # 4. Primary key uniqueness (if provided) if primary_key_columns: unique_pk_expectation = gx.expectations.ExpectCompoundColumnsToBeUnique( column_list=primary_key_columns ) suite.add_expectation(expectation=unique_pk_expectation) return suite Step 4 - Attach Data Asset & Batch Definition: data_source = context.data_sources.add_spark(name="bronze_datasource") data_asset = data_source.add_dataframe_asset(name="nyc_bronze_data") batch_definition = data_asset.add_batch_definition_whole_dataframe("full_bronze_batch") Step 5 - Run Validation: validation_definition = gx.ValidationDefinition( data=batch_definition, suite=suite, name="Bronze_DQ_Validation" ) results = validation_definition.run( batch_parameters={"dataframe": df} ) print(results) 7. Optional: Time-Series Batch Validation (Daily Slices) Fabric does not yet support add_batch_definition_timeseries, so your notebook implements custom logic to validate each day independently: dates_df = df.select(F.to_date("lpepPickupDatetime").alias("dt")).distinct() for d in dates: df_day = df.filter(F.to_date("lpepPickupDatetime") == d) results = validation_definition.run(batch_parameters={"dataframe": df_day}) This enables: Daily anomaly detection Partition-level completeness checks Early schema drift detection Automating DQ with Fabric Pipelines Fabric pipelines can orchestrate your data quality workflow: Trigger notebook after ingestion Pass parameters (table, layer, suite name) Persist DQ results to Lakehouse or Log Analytics Configure alerts in Fabric Monitor Production workflow Run the notebook Check validation results If failures exist: Raise an incident Fail the pipeline Notify the on-call engineer This creates a closed loop of ingestion → validation → monitoring → alerting. An example of DQ pipeline: Results: How Enterprises Benefit By standardizing data quality rules across all domains, organizations ensure consistent expectations and uniform validation practices , improved observability makes data quality issues visible and actionable, enabling teams to detect and resolve failures early. This, in turn, enhances overall reliability, ensuring downstream transformations and Power BI reports operate on clean, trustworthy data. Ultimately, stronger data quality directly contributes to AI readiness high-quality, well-validated data produces significantly better analytics and machine learning outcomes. Conclusion Great Expectations + Microsoft Fabric creates a scalable, modular, enterprise-ready approach for ensuring data quality across the entire medallion architecture. Whether you're validating raw ingested data, transformed datasets, or business-ready tables, the approach demonstrated here enables consistency, observability, and automation across all pipelines. With Fabric’s unified compute, orchestration, and monitoring, teams can now integrate DQ as a first-class citizen not an afterthought. Links: Implement medallion lakehouse architecture in Fabric - Microsoft Fabric | Microsoft Learn GX Expectations Gallery • Great Expectations
Defining the Raw Data Vault with Artificial Intelligence
This Article is Authored By Michael Olschimke, co-founder and CEO at Scalefree International GmbH. The Technical Review is done by Ian Clarke, Naveed Hussain – GBBs (Cloud Scale Analytics) for EMEA at Microsoft The Data Vault concept is used across the industry to build robust and agile data solutions. Traditionally, the definition (and subsequent modelling) of the Raw Data Vault, which captures the unmodified raw data, is done manually. This work demands significant human intervention and expertise. However, with the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), we are witnessing a paradigm shift in how we approach this foundational task. This article explores the transformative potential of leveraging AI to define the Raw Data Vault, demonstrating how intelligent automation can enhance efficiency, accuracy, and scalability, ultimately unlocking new levels of insight and agility for organizations. Note that this article describes a solution to AI-generated Raw Data Vault models. However, the solution is not limited to Data Vault, but allows the definition of any data-driven, schema-on-read model to integrate independent data sets in an enterprise environment. We discuss this towards the end of this article. Metadata-Driven Data Warehouse Automation In the early days of Data Vault, all engineering was done manually: an engineer would analyse the data sources and their datasets, come up with a Raw Data Vault model in an E/R tool or Microsoft Visio, and then develop both the DDL code (CREATE TABLE) and the ELT / ETL code (INSERT INTO statements). However, Data Vault follows many patterns. Hubs look very similar (the difference lies in the business keys) and are loaded similarly. We discussed these patterns in previous articles of this series, for example, when covering the Data Vault model and implementation. In most projects where Data Vault entities are created and loaded manually, a data engineer eventually develops the idea of creating a metadata-driven Data Vault generator due to these existing patterns. The effort to build a generator is too considerable, and most projects are better off using an off-the-shelf solution such as Vaultspeed. These tools come with a metadata repository and a user interface for setting up the metadata and code templates required to generate the Raw Data Vault (and often subsequent layers). We have discussed Vaultspeed in previous articles of this series. By applying the code templates to the metadata defined by the user, the actual code for the physical model is generated for a data platform, such as Microsoft Fabric. The code templates define the appearance of hubs, links, and satellites, as well as how they are loaded. The metadata defines which hubs, links, and satellites should exist to capture the incoming data set consistently. Manual development often introduces mistakes and errors that result in deviations in code quality. By generating the data platform code, deviations from the defined templates are not possible (without manual intervention), thus raising the overall quality. But the major driver for most project teams is to increase productivity. Instead of manually developing code, they generate the code. Metadata-driven generation of the Raw Data Vault is standard practice in today's projects. Today’s project tasks have therefore changed: while engineers still need to analyse the source data sets and develop a Raw Data Vault model, they no longer create the code (DDL/ELT). Instead, they set up the metadata that represents the Raw Data Vault model in the tool of their choice. Each data warehouse automation tool comes with its specific features, limitations, and metadata formats. The data engineer/modeler must understand how to transfer the Raw Data Vault model into the data warehouse automation tool by correctly setting up the metadata. This is also true for Vaultspeed; the data modeler can set up the metadata either through the user interface or via the SDK. This is the most labour-intensive task concerning the Raw Data Vault layer. It also requires experts who not only know Data Vault modelling but also know (or can analyse) the source systems' data and understand the selected data warehouse automation solution. Additionally, Data Vault is not equal to Data Vault in many cases, as it allows for a very flexible interpretation of how to model a Data Vault, which also leads to quality issues. But what if the organization has no access to such experts? What if budgets are limited, time is of the essence, or there are no available experts in sufficient numbers in the field? As Data Vault experts, we can debate the value of Data Vault as much as we want, but if there are no experts capable of modeling it, the debate will remain inconclusive. And what if this problem is only getting worse? In the past, a few dozen source tables might have been sufficient to be processed by the data platform. Today, several hundred source tables could be considered a medium-sized data platform. Tomorrow, there will be thousands of source tables. The reason? There is not only an exponential growth in the volume of data to be produced and processed, but it also comes with an exponential growth in the complexity of data shape. The source of this exponential growth in data shape comes from more complex source databases, APIs that produce and deliver semi-structured JSON data, and, ultimately, more complex business processes and an increasing amount of generated and available data that needs to be analysed for meaningful business results. Generating the Data Vault using Artificial Intelligence Increasingly, this data is generated using artificial intelligence (AI) and still requires integration, transformation, and analysis. The issue is that the number of data engineers, data modelers, and data scientists is not growing exponentially. Universities around the world only produce a limited number of these roles, and some of us would like to retire one day. Based on our experience, the increase in these roles is linear at best. Even if you argue for exponential growth in these roles, it is evident that there is no debate about a growing gap between the increasing data volume and the people who should analyse it. This gap cannot be closed by humans in the future. Even in a world where all kids want to become and eventually work in a data role. Sorry for all the pilots, police officers, nurses, doctors, etc., there is no way for you to retire without the whole economy imploding. Therefore, the only way to close the gap is through the use of artificial intelligence. It is not about reducing the data roles. It's about making them efficient so that they can deal with the growing data shape (and not just the volume). For a long time, it was common sense in the industry that, if an artificial intelligence could generate or define the Raw Data Vault, it would be an assisting technology. The AI would make recommendations, for example, such as which hubs or links to model and which business keys to use. The human data modeler would make the final decision, with input from the AI. But what if the AI made the final decision? What would it look like? What if one could attach data sources to the AI platform and the AI would analyze the source datasets, come up with a Raw Data Vault model, and load that model into Vaultspeed or another data warehouse automation tool, know the source system’s data, know Data Vault modelling, and understand the selected data warehouse automation? These questions were posed by Michael Olschimke, a Data Vault and AI expert, when initially considering the challenge. He researched the distribution of neural networks on massively parallel processing (MPP) clusters to classify unstructured data at Santa Clara University in Silicon Valley. This prior AI research, combined with the knowledge he accumulated in the Data Vault, enabled him to build a solution that later became known as Flow.BI. Flow.BI as a Generative AI to Define the Raw Data Vault The solution is simple, at least from the outside: attach a few data sources, let the AI do the rest. Flow.BI supports several data sources already, including Microsoft SQL Server and derivatives, such as Synapse and Fabric, as long as a JDBC driver is available, Flow.BI should eventually be able to analyze the data source. And the AI doesn’t care if the data originates from a CRM system, such as Microsoft Dynamics, or an e-commerce platform; it's just data. There are no provisions in the code to deal with specific datasets, at least for now. The goal of Flow.BI is to produce a valid, that is, consistent and integrated, enterprise data model. Typically, this follows a Data Vault design, but it's not limited to that (we’ll discuss this later in the article). This is achieved by following a strict data-driven approach that imitates the human data modeler. Flow.BI needs data to make decisions, just like its human counterpart. Source entities with no data will be ignored. It only requires some metadata, such as the available entities and their columns. Datatypes are nice-to-have; primary keys and foreign keys would improve the target model, just like entity and column descriptions. But they are not required to define a valid Raw Data Vault model. Humans write this text, and as such, we like to influence the result of the modelling exercise. Flow.BI is appreciating this by offering many options for the human data modeler to influence the engine. Some of them will be discussed in this article, but there are many more already available and more to come. Flow.BI’s user interface is kept as lean and straightforward as possible: the solution is designed so that the AI should take the lead and model the whole Raw Data Vault. The UI’s purpose is to interact with human data modelers, allowing them to influence the results. That’s what many screens are related to - and the configuration of the security system. A client can have multiple instances, which result in independent Data Vault models. This is particularly useful when dealing with independent data platforms, such as those used by HR, the compliance department, or specific business use cases, or when creating the raw data foundation for data products within a data mesh. In this case, a Flow.BI instance equals a data product. But don’t underestimate the complexity of Flow.BI: The frontend is used to manage a large number of compute clusters that implement scalable agents to work on defining the Raw Data Vault. The platform is implementing full separation of data and processing, not only by client but also by instance. Mapping Raw Data to Organizational Ontology The very first step in the process is to identify the concepts in the attached datasets. For this purpose, there is a concept classifier that analyses the data and recognizes datasets and their classified concepts that it has seen in the past. A common requirement of clients is that they would like to leverage their organizational requirements in this process. While Flow.BI doesn’t know a client’s ontology; it is possible to override (and in some cases, complete) the concept classifications and refer to concepts from the organizational ontology. By doing so, Flow.BI will integrate the source system’s raw data into the organization's ontology. It will not create a logical Data Vault, which is where the Data Vault model reflects the desired business, but instead model the raw data as the business uses it, and therefore follow the data-driven Data Vault modeling principles that Michael Olschimke has taught to thousands of students over the years at Scalefree. Flow.BI also allows the definition of a multi-tenant Data Vault model, where source systems either provide multi-tenant data or are assigned to a specific tenant. In both cases, the integrated enterprise data model will be extended to allow queries across multiple tenants or within a single tenant, depending on the information consumer’s needs. Ensuring Security and Privacy Flow.BI was designed with security and privacy in mind. From a design perspective, this has two aspects: Security and privacy in the service itself, to protect client solutions and related assets Security and privacy are integral to the defined model, allowing for the effective utilization of Data Vault’s capabilities in addressing security and privacy requirements, such as satellite splits. While Flow.BI is using a shared architecture; all data and metadata storage and processing are separated by client and instance. However, this is often not sufficient for clients as they hesitate to share their highly sensitive data with a third party. For this reason, Flow.BI allows two critical features: Local data storage: instead of storing client data on Flow.BI infrastructure, the client provides an Azure Data Lake Storage to be used for storing the data. Local data processing: A Docker container can be deployed into the client’s infrastructure to access the client's data sources, extract the data, and process it. When using both options, only metadata, such as entity and column names, constraints, and descriptions, are shared with Flow.BI. No data is transferred from the client’s infrastructure to Flow.BI. The metadata is secured on Flow.BI’s premises as if it were actual data: row-level security separates the metadata by instance, and roles and permissions are defined per client who can access the metadata and what they can do with it. But security and privacy are not limited to the service itself. The defined model also utilizes the security and privacy features of Data Vault. For example, it enables the classification of source columns based on security and privacy. The user can set up security and privacy classes and apply them to the influence screen for both. By doing so, the column classifications are used when defining the Raw Data Vault and can later be used to implement a satellite split in the physical model (if necessary). An upcoming release will include an AI model for classifying columns based on privacy, utilizing data and metadata to automate this task. Tackling Multilingual Challenges A common challenge for clients is navigating multilingual data environments. Many data sources use English entity and column names, but there are systems using metadata in a different language. Also, the assumption that the data platform should use English metadata is not always correct. Especially in government clients, the use of the official language is mandatory. Both options, translating the source metadata to English (the default within Flow.BI) and translating the defined target model into any target language, are supported by Flow.BI’s translations tab on the influence screen: The tab utilizes an AI translator to fully automatically translate the incoming table names, column names, and concept names. However, the user can step in and override the translation to improve it to their needs. All strings of the source metadata and the defined model are passed through the translation module. It is also possible to reuse existing translations for a growing list of popular data sources. This feature enables readable names for satellites and their attributes (as well as hubs and links), resulting in a significantly improved user experience for the defined Raw Data Vault. Generating the Physical Model You should have noticed by now that we consistently discuss the defined Raw Data Vault model. Flow.BI is not generating the physical model, that is, the CREATE TABLE and INSERT INTO statements for the Raw Data Vault. Instead, it “just” defines the hubs, links, and satellites required for capturing all incoming data from the attached data sources, including business key selection, satellite splits, and special entity types, such as non-historized links and their satellites, multi-active satellites, hierarchical links, effectivity satellites, and reference tables. Video on Generating Physical Models This logical model (not to be confused with “logical Data Vault modelling”) is then provided to our growing number of ISV partner solutions that will consume our defined model, set up the required metadata in their tool, and generate the physical model. As a result, Flow.BI acts as a team member that analyses your organizational data sources and their data, knows how to model the Raw Data Vault, and how to set up metadata in the tool of your choice. The metadata is provided by Flow.BI can be used to model the landing zone/staging area (either on a data lake or a relational database such as Microsoft Fabric) and the Raw Data Vault in a data-driven Data Vault architecture, which is the recommended practice. With this in mind, Flow.BI is not a competition to Vaultspeed or your other existing data warehouse automation solution, but a valid extension that integrates with your existing tool stack. This makes it much easier to justify the introduction of Flow.BI to the project. Going Beyond Data Vault Flow.BI is not limited to the definition of Data Vault models. While it has been designed with the Data Vault concepts in mind, a customizable expert system is used to define the Data Vault model. Although the expert system is not yet publicly available, it has already been implemented and is in use for every model generation. This expert system enables the implementation of alternative data models, provided they adhere to data-driven, schema-on-read principles. Data Vault is such an example, but many others are possible, as well: Customized Data Vault models Inmon-style enterprise models in third-normal form (3NF, if no business logic is required Kimball-style analytical models with facts and dimensions, again without business logic Semi-structured JSON and XML document collections Key-value stores “One Big Table (OBT)” models “Many Big Related Table (MBRT)” models Okay, we’ve just invented the MBRT model as we're writing the article, but you get the idea: many large, fully denormalized tables with foreign–key relationships between each other. If you've developed your data-driven model, please get in touch with us. About the Authors Michael Olschimke is co-founder and CEO of Flow.BI, a generative AI that defines integrated enterprise data models, such as (but not limited to) Data Vault. Michael has trained thousands of industry data warehousing professionals, taught academic classes, and published regularly on topics around data platforms, data engineering, and Data Vault. He has over two decades of experience in information technology, with a specialization in business intelligence topics, artificial intelligence and data platforms. <<< Back to Blog Series Title Page
Explore Microsoft Fabric Data Agent & Azure AI Foundry for agentic solutions
Contributors for this blogpost: Jeet J & Ritaja S Context & Objective Over the past year, Gen AI apps have expanded significantly across enterprises. The agentic AI era is here, and the Microsoft ecosystem helps enable end-to-end acceleration of agentic AI apps in production. In this blog, we'll cover how both low-code business analysts and pro-code developers can use the Microsoft stack to build reusable agentic apps for their organizations. Professionals in the Microsoft ecosystem are starting to build advanced agentic generative AI solutions using Microsoft AI Services and Azure AI Foundry, which supports both open source and industry models. Combined with the advancements in Microsoft Fabric, these tools enable robust, industry-specific applications. This blog post explains how to develop multi-agent solutions for various industries using Azure AI Foundry, Copilot Studio, and Fabric. Disclaimer: This blogpost is for educational purposes only and walks through the process of using the relevant services without ton of custom code; teams must follow engineering best practices—including development, automated deployment, testing, security, and responsible AI—before any production deployment. What to expect In-Focus: Our goal is to help the reader explore specific industry use cases and understand the concept of building multi-agent solutions. In our case, we will focus on the insurance and financial services use case, use Fabric Notebooks to create sample (fake) datasets, utilize simple click-through based workflow to build-and-configure three agents (both on Fabric and Azure AI Foundry), tie them together and offer the solution via Teams or Microsoft Copilot using the new M365 Agents Toolkit. Out-of-Focus: This blog post will not cover the fundamentals of Azure AI Services, Azure AI Foundry, or the various components of Microsoft Fabric. It also won’t cover the different ways (low-code or pro-code) to build agents, orchestration frameworks (Semantic Kernel, Langchain, AutoGen, etc.) for orchestrating the agents, or hosting options (Azure App Service – Web App, Azure Kubernetes Service, Azure Container Apps, Azure Functions ). Please review the pointers listed towards the end to gain a holistic understanding of building and deploying mission-critical generative AI solutions. Logical Architecture of Multi-Agent Solution utilizing Microsoft Fabric Data Agent and Azure AI Foundry Agent. Fabric & Azure AI Foundry – Pro-code Agentic path Prerequisites a. Access to Azure Tenant & Subscription b. Work with Azure tenant administrator to have appropriate Azure Roles and Capacity to provision Azure Resources (services) and Deploy AI Models in certain regions. c. A paid F2 or higher Fabric capacity resource – Important to note that the Fabric compute capacity can be paused and resumed. Pause in case you wish to save costs after your learning. d. Access Fabric Admin Portal Power BI for enabling these settings > Fabric data agent tenant settings is enabled. > Copilot tenant switch is enabled. > Optional: Cross-geo processing for AI is enabled. (depends on your region and data sovereignty requirements) > Optional: Cross-geo storing for AI is enabled. (depends on your region) e. At least one of these: Fabric Data Warehouse, Fabric Lakehouse, one or more Power BI semantic models, or a KQL database with data. This blog post will cover how to create sample datasets using Fabric Notebooks. f. Power BI semantic models via XMLA endpoints tenant switch is enabled for Power BI semantic model data sources. Walkthrough/Set-up One-time setup for Fabric Workspace and all agents a) Visit https://app.powerbi.com Click “New workspace” button to create a new workspace, give it a name and ensure that it is tied/associated to the Fabric Capacity you have provisioned. b) Click Workspace settings of the newly created Workspace c) Review the information in License info. If the workspace isn’t associated with your newly created Fabric Capacity, please do the proper association (link the Fabric capacity to the workspace) and wait for 5-10 mins. 2. Create an Insurance Agent a) Create a new Lakehouse in your Fabric Workspace. Change the name to InsuranceLakehouse b) Create a new Fabric Notebook, assign a name, and associate the Insurance Lakehouse with it. c) Add the following Pyspark (Python) code-snippets in the Notebook. i) Faker library for Fabric Notebook ii) Insurance Sample Dataset in Fabric Notebook iii) Run both cells to generate the sample Insurance dataset. d) Create a new Fabric data agent, give it a name and add the Data Source (InsuranceLakehouse). i) Ensure that the Insurance Lakehouse is added as the data source in the Insurance Fabric data agent. ii) Click AI instructions button first to paste the sample instructions and finally the Publish button. iii) Paste the sample instructions in the field. A churn is represented by number 1. Calculate churn rate as : total number of churns (TC) / (TT) total count of churn entries. When asked to calculate churn for each policy type then TT should be total count of churn of that policy type e.g Life, legal. iv) Make sure to hit the Publish button. v) Capture two values from the URL and store them in secure/private place. We will use them to configure the knowledge source in Azure AI Foundry Agent. https://app.powerbi.com/groups/<WORKSPACE-ID>/aiskills/<ARTIFACT-ID>?experience=power-bi e) Create Azure AI Agent on Azure AI Foundry and use Fabric Data Agent as the Knowledge Source i) Visit https://ai.azure/com ii) Create new Azure AI Project and deploy gpt-4o-mini model (as an example model) in the region where the model is available. iii) Create new Azure AI Foundry Agent by clicking the “New agent” button. Give it a name (for e.g. AgentforInsurance) iv) Paste the sample Instructions in the Azure AI Agent as follows Use Fabric data agent tool to answer questions related to Insurance data. Fabric data agent as a tool has access to insurance data tables: Claims (amount, date, status), Customer (age, address, occupation, etc), Policy (premium amount, policy type: life insurance, auto insurance, etc) v) On the right-hand pane, click “+Add” button next to Knowledge. vi) Choose an existing Fabric data agent connection or click the new Connection. vii) In the next dialog, plug-in the values of the Workspace and Artifact ID you captured above, Ensure that “is secret” is checked, give a name to the connection and hit the Connect button. viii) Add the Code Interpreter as the tool in the Azure AI Foundry agent by clicking +Add next to Actions and selecting Code Interpreter. ix) Test the agent by clicking “Try in playground” button x) To test the Agent, you can try out these sample questions: What is the churn rate across my different insurance policy types What’s the month over month claims change in % for each insurance type? Show me graph view of month over month claims change in % for each insurance type for the year 2025 only Based on month over month claims change for the year 2025, can you show the forecast for the next 3 months in a graph? f) Exposing the Fabric data agent to end users: We will explore this in the Copilot Studio Section Fabric & Copilot Studio – Low-code agentic path Prerequisites For Copilot Studio, you have 3 options to work with: Copilot Studio trial or Copilot Studio license or Copilot Studio Pay as you go (connected to your Azure billing). Follow steps here to setup: Copilot Studio licensing - Microsoft Copilot Studio | Microsoft Learn Once you have Copilot Studio set up, navigate to https://copilotstudio.microsoft.com/ and start creating a new agent – Click on “create” and then “New Agent” Walkthrough/Set-up: Follow steps from “Fabric & Azure AI Foundry section” to create the Fabric Lakehouse and You could create the new agent by describing step by step in natural language but for this exercise we will “skip to configure” (button): Give the agent a name, add a helpful description (suggestion, add: Agent that has access to Insurance data and helps with data driven insights from Policy, Claims and Customer information). Then add the agent instruction prompt: “Answer questions related to Insurance data, you have access to insurance data agent, use the agent to gather insights from insurance Lakehouse containing customer, policy and claim information.” Finally click on “Create” You should have the following setup like below: Next, we want to add another agent for this agent to use – in this case this will be our Fabric Data Agent. Click on “Agents”: Next click on “Add” and add agent. From the screen click on Microsoft Fabric: If you haven’t set-up a connection to Fabric from Copilot Studio, you will be prompted to create a new connection, follow the prompts to sign in with your user and add a connection. Once that is done click “Next” to continue: From the Fabric screen, select the appropriate data agent and click “Next”: On the next screen, name the agent appropriately and use a friendly description “Agent that answers questions from the insurance lakehouse knowledge, has access to claims, policies and customer information” and finally click on “Add Agent”: On the “Tools” section click on refresh to make sure the tool description populates. Finally go back to overview and then Start Testing the agent from the side Test Panel. Click on Activity map to see the sequence of events. Type in the following question: “What’s the month over month claims change in % for auto insurance ?” You can see the Fabric data agent is called by the Copilot Agent in this scenario to answer your question: Now let’s prepare to surface this through Teams. You will need to publish the agent to a channel (in this case, we will use the Teams channel). First, navigate to channels: Click on the Teams and M365 Copilot channel and click add. After adding the channel, a pop up will ask y ou if you are ready to publish the agent: To view the app in Teams you need to make sure that you have setup proper policies in Teams. Follow this tutorial: Connect and configure an agent for Teams and Microsoft 365 Copilot - Microsoft Copilot Studio | Microsoft Learn. Now your app is available across Teams. Below is an example of how to use it from Teams – make sure you click on “Allow” for the fabric data agent connection: Fabric & AI Foundry & Copilot Studio – the end to end We saw how Fabric data agents can be created and utilized in Copilot Studio in a multi-agent setup. In the future, pro-code and low-code agentic developers are expected to work together to create agentic apps, instead of in silos. So, how do we solve the challenge of connecting all the components together in the same technology stack ? Let’s say a pro-code developer has created a custom agent in AI Foundry. Meanwhile, a low-code business user has put in business context to create another agent that requires access to the agent in AI Foundry. You’ll be pleased to know that Copilot Studio and Azure AI Foundry are becoming more integrated to enable complex, custom scenarios: Copilot Studio will soon release the integration to help with this: Summary: We demonstrated how one can build a Gen AI solution that allows seamless integration between Azure AI Foundry agents and Fabric data agents. We look forward to seeing what innovative solutions you can build by learning and working closely with your Microsoft contacts or your SI partner. This may include but not limited to: Utilizing a real industry domain to illustrate the concepts of building simple multi-agent solution. Showcasing the value of combining Fabric data agent and Azure AI agent Demonstrating how one can publish the conceptual solution to Teams or Copilot using the new M365 Agents Toolkit. Note that this blog post focused only on Fabric data agent and Azure AI Foundry Agent Service, but production ready solutions will need to consider Azure Monitor (for monitoring and observability) and Microsoft Purview for data governance. Pointers to Other Learning Resources Ways to build AI Agents: Build agents, your way | Microsoft Developer Components of Microsoft Fabric: What is Microsoft Fabric - Microsoft Fabric | Microsoft Learn Info on Microsoft Fabric data agent Create a Fabric data agent (preview) - Microsoft Fabric | Microsoft Learn Fabric Data Agent Tutorial: Fabric data agent scenario (preview) - Microsoft Fabric | Microsoft Learn New in Fabric Data Agent: Data source instructions for smarter, more accurate AI responses | Microsoft Fabric Blog | Microsoft Fabric Info on Azure AI Services, Models and Azure AI Foundry Azure AI Foundry documentation | Microsoft Learn What are Azure AI services? - Azure AI services | Microsoft Learn How to use Azure AI services in Azure AI Foundry portal - Azure AI Services | Microsoft Learn What is Azure AI Foundry Agent Service? - Azure AI Foundry | Microsoft Learn Explore Azure AI Foundry Models - Azure AI Foundry | Microsoft Learn What is Azure OpenAI in Azure AI Foundry Models? | Microsoft Learn Explore model leaderboards in Azure AI Foundry portal - Azure AI Foundry | Microsoft Learn & Benchmark models in the model leaderboard of Azure AI Foundry portal - Azure AI Foundry | Microsoft Learn How to use model router for Azure AI Foundry (preview) | Microsoft Learn Observability in Generative AI with Azure AI Foundry - Azure AI Foundry | Microsoft Learn Trustworthy AI for Azure AI Foundry - Azure AI Foundry | Microsoft Learn Cost Management for Models: Plan to manage costs for Azure AI Foundry Models | Microsoft Learn Provisioned Throughput Offering: Provisioned throughput for Azure AI Foundry Models | Microsoft Learn Extend Azure AI Foundry Agent with Microsoft Fabric Expand Azure AI Agent with New Knowledge Tools: Microsoft Fabric and Tripadvisor | Microsoft Community Hub How to use the data agents in Microsoft Fabric with Azure AI Foundry Agent Service - Azure AI Foundry | Microsoft Learn General guidance on when to adopt, extend and build CoPilot experiences: Adopt, extend and build Copilot experiences across the Microsoft Cloud | Microsoft Learn M365 Agents Toolkit Choose the right agent solution to support your use case | Microsoft Learn Microsoft 365 Agents Toolkit Overview - Microsoft 365 Developer | Microsoft Learn Github and Video to offer Azure AI Agent inside Teams or CoPilot via M365 Agents Toolkit OfficeDev/microsoft-365-agents-toolkit: Developer tools for building Teams apps & Deploying your Azure AI Foundry agent to Microsoft 365 Copilot, Microsoft Teams, and beyond Happy Learning! Contributors: Jeet J & Ritaja S Special thanks to reviewers: Joanne W, Amir J & Noah A
