PowerBI Hybrid Table, you can have your cake and Eat it too.

Hybrid table is a Clever technical solution to a very fundamental problem in Data Analytics, How to keep Data fresh and at the same time fast, PowerBI , Tableau, Qlik solved this problem by importing data to a local Cache, this solution work for most of the use cases, but as with any solution it has limitation.

  • If the Data Source is too big, you can’t simply keep importing to the local cache.
  • If the Data Source change very frequently, like every couple of minutes or second, importing become just not practical or very hard.

PowerBI Engine team came up with a very simple Idea, you can have both Mode in the same table, Historical data that don’t change is cached and today data is queried live as it changed very quickly, Patrick from Guy in the Cube has a great video , Andy has another Video but specific to Synapse Serverless

This functionality was released in the December 2021 edition of PowerBI , but unfortunately when I test it with BigQuery, it did not work, I reported the issue and I have to say, I was really impressed by the Product team, (Kudos to Christian Wade and Krystian Sakowski ), yesterday they released an updated version and it fixed the issue. (it works with Snowflake, Databricks etc)


it is literary just an extra box to click compared to the Previous incremental refresh User interface

Yes, Just like that, The Engine will generate table partitions behind the scene, if you want to know why PowerBI is so successful, it is because of stuff like this, take a very hard problem and make it extremely easy for Non Tech people to use.

The Data Model is very simple; one fact table with Data that change every couple of minutes, and a Date dimension in a Mixed mode, ( watch Patrick Video, he explain why)

Premium Only

Yes, it is a premium only feature, and obviously it works with Premium per User, I am not going to complain, someone needs to pay for those R&D cost, but it will be really nice if they release it to the PRO license too, it just feels Odd that a core feature of the Engine is tied to a particular license, we had this situation before with incremental refresh and they did release it even for the free license, I hope the same will happen with Hybrid Table.

Mixed Partitions

I published the report to the service, and used Tabular Editor to see what’s going on behind the scene (make sure you download the latest version of Tabular Editor, works with the free version too)


As expected the Last Partition is Live Mode, and everything else is cached in PowerBI.

How it Works

I used DAX Studio to capture what the engine is doing when you run a Query


PowerBI formula engine send two Queries one to the remote DB in my case BigQuery and the local Storage, you can clearly see the difference in speed

1 Day using DQ : 2 second ( the Query take 400 ms at the end point, But BigQuery has a very substandard ODBC driver)

13 Months worth of Data Cached : 47 ms

The Point is, if you can just import, do it, you will get the best performance and user experience

( At Work we have a sub 5 minute pipeline end to end from the Source DB to PowerBI).

The Devil is in the details

As far as I can tell, Formula Engine keep sending two Queries every time, even when the required data is cached already, obviously the Query from the external DB will return null results, in Theory , it should not be a big deal, Modern DW are fast specially with partitioning pruning.

Unfortunately no, only some Database can return a sub second null result set to PowerBI ( yes the Quality of the Driver is as important as the DB Engine itself)

Take Away

It is a very interesting solution worth testing for specific scenarios, but if you can get away with Importing data only, then it is still the best way, yes Hybrid Table reduce the Workload on the remote Database, but still you need a solid Database, getting a sub second Query from end to end is still a hard problem even for 1 day worth of data ( just test it, don’t forget concurrency )

I heard a different use cases, which I find very intriguing, some users want the other way around, recent Data as Import and historical Data as Direct Query, I guess it is useful if you have a real big fact Table.

A Surprising side effect of PowerBI Hybrid table,( maybe it was planned, who knows) Synapse Serverless in Direct Query mode looks now like a very good candidate to use, scanning one day of data is faster and an order of magnitude cheaper !!!

I still Hope that the Vetipaq Engine team surprise us in a future update and somehow let the Formula engine generate only 1 Query when all Data needed is in the Local cache.

Benchmarking Synapse Serverless using TPC-H-SF10

Edit : February 2023 , Synapse serverless has substantially improved the Query performance for TPCH-SF10, first run which include calculating the statistics take around 2 minutes, but the second run is around 62 second.

In a previous blog, I did a benchmark for a couple of Database Engine, although it was not a rigorous test, pretty much the results were in the expected range, except for Synapse serverless, I got some weird results, and not sure if it is by design or I am doing something very wrong, so I thought it worth showing the steps I took hoping to find what’s exactly going on. The test was done in January 2022.

First Check : Same region

I am using an azure storage in Southeast Asia

My synapse Instance is in the same region

Ok both are in the same region, first best practice.

Loading Data into Azure Data Store

The 8 parquet files are saved in this Google drive, so anyone can download it,

Define Schema

In Synapse, you can directly start querying a file without defining anything, using Openrowset, I thought I can test TPC-H Query 1 as it uses only 1 table, which did not work , some kind of case sensitive issue, when writing this blog I run the same Query and it worked just fine, ( no idea what changed)

1 minute on a second run, hmm not good, let’s try a proper external table , the data_source and File_format were already defined, so need to recreate it again.

	[L_ORDERKEY] bigint,
	[L_PARTKEY] bigint,
	[L_SUPPKEY] bigint,
	[L_LINENUMBER] bigint,
	[L_QUANTITY] float,
	[L_DISCOUNT] float,
	[L_TAX] float,
	[L_RETURNFLAG] nvarchar(1),
	[L_LINESTATUS] nvarchar(1),
	[L_SHIPINSTRUCT] nvarchar(25),
	[L_SHIPMODE] nvarchar(10),
	[L_COMMENT] nvarchar(44),
	[l_shipdate] datetime2(7),
	[l_commitdate] datetime2(7),
	[l_receiptdate] datetime2(7)
	LOCATION = 'lineitem.parquet',
	DATA_SOURCE = [xxx_core_windows_net],
	FILE_FORMAT = [SynapseParquetFormat]

SELECT count (*) FROM dbo.lineitem_temp

A Proper Table with Data type and all

let’s try again the same Query 1

ok 2 minute for the first run, let’s try another run which will use statistics, it should be faster, 56 second ( btw, you pay for those statistics too)

Not happy with the results I asked Andy ( Our Synapse expert) and he was kind enough to download and test it, he suggested splitting the file give better performance , he got 16 second.

CETAS to the rescue

Create External Table as Select is a very powerful functionality in Serverless, The code is straightforward

	LOCATION = '/lineitem',
	DATA_SOURCE = [xxxx_core_windows_net],
	FILE_FORMAT = [SynapseParquetFormat]
SELECT * FROM dbo.lineitem_temp

Synapse will create a new table Lineitem with the same data type and a folder that contain multiple parquet files.

That’s all what you can do, you can’t partition the table, you can’t sort the table, but what’s really annoying you can’t delete the table, you have first to delete the table from the database then delete the folder

but at least it is well documented

Anyway, let’s see the result now

Not bad at all, 10 second and only 587 MB scanned compared to 50 second and 1.2 GB.

Now that I know that CETAS has better performance, I have done the same for remaning 7 tables.

Define all the tables

First Create an external Table to define the type then a CETAS, Synapse has done a great job guessing the type, I know it is parquet after all, but varchart is annoying by default it is 4000, you have to manually adjust the correct length.

TPC-H document contains the exact schema

Running the Test

The 22 Queries are saved here, I had to do some change to the SQL, changing limit to Top and extract year from x to Year (x), Query 15 did not run, I asked the Question on Stackoverflow and Wbob kindly answer it very quickly

The first run, I find some unexpected results

I thought I was doing something terribly wrong, the Query duration seems to increase substantially, after that I start messing around, what I found is, if you run just one Query at the time, or even 4, the results are fine, more than that, and the performance deteriorate quickly.

A Microsoft employee was very helpful and provided this script to Query the Database History

I imported the Query History to PowerBI and here is the results

There is no clear indication in the documentation that there is a very strict concurrency limitation, I tried to run the Script in SSMS and it is the same behavior, that seems to me the Engine is adding the Queries to a queue, there is a bottleneck somewhere.

Synapse serverless show the duration between when the Job was submitted until it is completed, there is no way to know the actual Duration of each Query, so basically the Overall Duration is the duration of the Last Query, in our Case Q22, which is around 3 Minutes.


The Good news, the product team made it very clear, Synapse Serverless is not an Interactive Query Engine

Realistically speaking, reading from Azure storage will always be slower compared to a local SSD Storage, so no I am not comparing it to other DWH offering, having said that even for exploring files on azure storage, the performance is very problematic.

First Look at SingleStore

I could have written a nice paragraph why I got interested in SingleStore but to be honest the reason is very simple and has nothing about the tech, Jordan Tigani one of the founding Engineers of BigQuery is now their Chief Product Officer, so I became very curious 🙂

Again, I am only interested in Small Interactive BI Workload, contrary to the usual Suspects ( BigQuery, Snowflake etc), SingleStore is not a pure Data warehouse but rather a multi purpose database, it does OLTP Workloads but has an excellent support for OLAP Workload, I am only interested in Analytical Workloads.


There is a free trial with $500, the setup was very intuitive, I really liked the way you create a new Cluster, notice I don’t have an account with AWS, but it is a software as a service Experience, SingleStore manage everything on behalf of the user, I chose AWS as they support the Sydney Region.

The smallest tier start at 0.25 Credit/hour, which cost 0.65 $/Hour, Unlike Snowlake and Databricks there is no auto suspend and auto start, you have to do it manually.

For some reason Suspend a Cluster is not available in Google Cloud !!!

The Console has the bare minimum but functional, there is no multiple tab, if you run a Query, you need to wait till it is done before running another one

There is an odd choice in the UI, when you want to monitor the Cluster you need to open a new page called SingleStore Studio

It is not the end of the world, but a bit annoying when you are new to the product

Loading Data

There is sample Data you can quickly load to start running Queries, but I wanted to test only my own dataset (TPC-H- SF10) ( nice surprise it was added this week)

Although my Cluster is in AWS, loading files from Google Cloud was trivial, all I had to do is setup a new pipeline

first define the table, notice the Clustered Columnstore key

CREATE TABLE `orders` (
`o_orderkey` bigint(11) NOT NULL,
`o_custkey` int(11) NOT NULL,
`o_orderstatus` char(1) CHARACTER SET utf8 COLLATE utf8_general_ci NOT NULL,
`o_totalprice` decimal(15,2) NOT NULL,
`o_orderdate` date NOT NULL,
`o_orderpriority` char(15) CHARACTER SET utf8 COLLATE utf8_general_ci NOT NULL,
`o_clerk` char(15) CHARACTER SET utf8 COLLATE utf8_general_ci NOT NULL,
`o_shippriority` int(11) NOT NULL,
`o_comment` varchar(79) CHARACTER SET utf8 COLLATE utf8_general_ci NOT NULL,

Define a new pipeline

AS LOAD DATA GCS 'xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
CREDENTIALS '{"access_id": "xxx", "secret_key": "xxxxxx"}'
INTO TABLE tpch.orders

Then Run the pipeline and the data is automatically loaded, very nice


Testing using TPC-H SF10 Benchmark

to test all the 22 Queries of the benchmark I used the same script for BI Engine, here is the results after 10 runs using the Dataset Provided by Singlestore ( Using S-0 Cluster, see pricing here)

A lot of Queries are already under a second even when using a lower tier !!! Queries 13 result is a bit odd.

if I understood correctly, SingleStore does not have a results cache when you run the same Query again, SingleStore store the Query plan but scan the data again, although the data is stored on Disk, metadata on the tables is stored In-Memory ( tables for OLTP workload are always In-Memory)

The Previous chart was built using Google Data Studio, as of this writing, PowerBI does not have a native connector, you need to download a custom connector which means you need a gateway, not sure if Direct Query is supported at all, I quickly used MySQL connector which works fine but import mode only (SingleStore is compatible with MySQL tools)

Take Away

I was really impressed by the Product, we all hear about this operational analytics and it seems SingleStore has a good solution, there are missing functionalities though, Auto suspend and resume is not available yet and no native connector for PowerBI is very problematic, but it is really Fast and do write workload too.

PowerBI Vertipaq Vs Snowflake Vs BigQuery BI Engine

Another Short blog on my favorite topic, High Concurrency, Low latency Interactive BI Workload, I can’t test everything, but so far, I am impressed by BigQuery BI Engine and Snowflake on Azure, a reader may thinks, I have an anti-Microsoft bias which is nonsense, I think Microsoft has a different approach, Data warehouse is for storage and Transformation but as a serving layer, you load your reporting tables into a Tabular Model (PowerBI, Analysis Services)

PowerBI tabular model, at a very highly level consists of an analytical Database and a semantic Model, for the purpose of this blog , I am only interested in The Vertipaq database order of magnitude performance, it is not a benchmark, I am just asking a lot of questions, and hopefully start a conversation.

Just a note for readers not familiar with PowerBI, when PowerBI uses Direct Query Mode, it means The tabular Model using the existing semantic Model will send the Queries to the resource system directly and Vertipaq is not used.

What’s the difference between the Three Engines

Although all the three are Columnars Database, They use different tech and implement different assumption, it is a very technical subject and I am afraid there is not enough literature, but from my perspective as a user,I have notice the following.

  • BigQuery BI Engine : The Data is loaded from BigQuery Storage to Memory, if the base tables changes, the data is reloaded nearly in near time, Only Column and partition needed for the Query are loaded, it does implement in-Memory compression , but , according to the dev, the engine may leave some columns without Compression for performance reason, I think it is a balance between compression overhead and loading data from the storage as soon as possible (This is my own speculation, I am sure it is much more complex), if the Query is not supported or the data scanned is too Big, it fall back to BigQuery, Mosha has a nice technical Video about the Engine

  • Snowflake : I Notice the data can be cached in the local SSD drive, the performance became substantially faster, Although it is not an in-memory Database, I was genuinely Impressed by the performance. ( To honest I don’t know much about Snowflake)

Vertipaq : When the data is loaded from the Disk Storage to memory, all the Model is loaded, it means all the tables and columns, unlike the previous two engine, you can’t load only a subset of the data or only columns needed for the Queries, you have to manually make that selection either by importing only the columns you think you will need initially and the same by filtering a subset of the rows.

Basically, it is another independant copy of the data, and you need ETL process to make sure the data is synchronized between the source Data Storage and Vertipaq Storage, Marco Russo has a detailed Video about the Engine

Note regarding relationship

Since I start using PowerBI, I was always mystified by the performance of Vertipaq joins, it is well known, joins are expensive in all Databases, Vertipaq seems to be the exception, initially I started with this Model


I asked a simple Question, what’s the total Quantity by Country, to get the answer the filter has to traverse some non trivial relationship ( Customer to order, 1.5 Millions distinct value, and then orders to Lineitem 15 Million distinct value)

  • Vertipaq gave the results in 536ms !!!!
  • Snowflake 2.9 Second.
  • BI Engine did fall back to BigQuery (4 second), BI engine has a limitation of 5 Million Dim Table

Vertipaq Materialized the joins, I don’t know how an analytical Database can compete with this implementation, but I read that firebolt has something called Join Index ( to be verified, I have not test it myself), anyway here the duration using DAX Studio, it is very fast

Star Schema Model

As BI Engine does not support yet a join with more than 5 millions rows, I changed the Semantic Model to a Star Schema, I did join the table order and Lineitem and create 1 wide fact Table, Notice I am using the sample Data provided by Snowflake TPC-H with a factor of 10, the main fact is 60 Millions rows. The supplier is 100K rows and Customer is 1.5 Millions rows.

Snowflake is using the x-Small, cost $2.75 /Hour

BigQuery : 1 GB cost 5 cents/Hour

Vertipaq : Using my PowerBI Desktop.

Joins Performance

Using the Start Schema Model, and the same Question, total Quantity sold by country ( I know the metric is not very useful, but I am interested only in performance)

BI Engine : Around 1.8 Sec, I had to Cluster the Table by Custkey.

Snowflake : 1.6 S

Vertipaq, using Materialized relationship average 52 ms

Vertipaq using runtime joins : Average 8 S

I used TREATAS to simulate a join without a physical relationship ( I hope my DAX is not wrong)

sum_Quantity_Virtual = 
    SUM ( lineitem_orders[L_QUANTITY] ),
        VALUES ( customer_nation_region[C_CUSTKEY] ),

and here is the results using DAX Studio

Group by using Same Table

A simple Query, total Quantity by Line Status

BI Engine : 200 ms

Vertipaq : 6.8 ms , yeah, it is not a mistake, and it is not a result cache, honestly I have no idea how it is even possible to get this result.

Snowflake : 366 ms


  • It is a no surprise, Vertipaq is extremely fast, at least for a small dataset, Analytical Database can’t really compete, Materialized relationship are awesome, but you need to make a copy of your data, usually it is not an issue, until your data is too big or too volatile, Microsoft is aware of this and added feature like Hybrid Table will help

  • Another interesting Question, at what Data Size Analytical DWH become faster than PowerBI Vertipaq ?

  • This one is my own speculation, Maybe Analytical DWH don’t need to be as fast as Vertipaq, maybe not having to copy data is a bigger advantage than having a response time in less than 100 ms.
  • I write only about Tech that I have used personally, but it seems, Firebolt and SingleStore serve the same workload too, my experience with Databricks SQL was a mixed feeling, I don’t think it is fast enough for this workload.

For the kind of work I do, Vertipaq is a Godsend, it is very fast, it tolerate wrong design choices, and for the majority of my workload it is the best solution in the market, and it was battle tested for 10 years, with a lot of real life optimization.

Having said that, it is just a Database competing indirectly with other technology for the same Workload, and some competitors are getting dangerously good.

%d bloggers like this: