HomeAzure Synapse Analytics/SQL DWAzure Synapse Analytics confusion

Comments

Azure Synapse Analytics confusion — 12 Comments

  1. Awesome write-up James on the roadmap.
    I have a concerns over Synapse monitoring the Query store is not capturing resource utilization at query level and all columns related to resource ( CPU,MEMORY,I/O) are populated as null will it get resolved in coming release.

  2. Hi James
    Helpful to get concise clarity as usual in your posts.
    One question re: the diagram…
    For v1, you highlight what are currently “private preview” features.
    For v2, you just list “preview” features. This implies these currently aren’t in private preview, however I believe many are (such as on-demand queries and associated pricing).
    Just checking whether these features are now in public preview or whether I am reading too much into an implied distinction in the diagram.
    Chris
    PS – please ignore preview comment.

    • Hi Chris,

      Ah, I see your confusion. Apparently I still caused some confusion 🙂 All the v2 features are in private preview. I have updated the picture. Thanks for letting me know!

  3. Good Day James:

    My biggest question is what SQL engine will be behind Synapse. I simply cannot see moving forward with the MPP based engine and limited language surface area. From my perspective the only correct answer here is Hyperscale (Socrates).

    Can you comment?

      • Hello James

        That’s unfortunate and ready doesn’t make much sense.

        It would be the perfect time to migrate to the Hyperscale engine. It would be much more competitive which Snowflake and offers superior capabilities in many ways

          • Microsoft contradicts it’s own white paper published by Microsoft Research in it’s public facing web pages regarding such (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/sql-database/sql-database-service-tier-hyperscale-faq)

            I believe the persons who wrote the content do not truly understand Hyperscale and / or have been told such in order to tow the company line. This becomes evident when you read the white paper. And I find this disturbing but understandable because it would cut into Synapse if Microsoft insists on continuing to stick to the legacy MPP engine instead of doing the right thing and moving to the Hyperscale engine, which might be accomplished in relatively short order, in my humble opinion.

          • James,

            Just to be clear, I know there is no control node present in the architecture to support distributed compute at this time, but the architecture is not classic SMP architecture because of the way storage and compute are decoupled. Accordingly, it seems to be that it would be within reach for Microsoft to take the control node concepts and technology from DW and adapt it to work with the Hyperscale with an acceptable amount of effort if it’s truly necessary to do so. I know there are language surface area consideration with respect to distribution, but that should not be a reason not to move forward with Hyperscale as a replacement at the core.

          • James:

            One last point with respect to the lack of the control node, the core architecture of Hyperscale already addresses everything necessary to do distributed workloads without having to rely on distribution sharding of the data because of how it deals with data replication.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>