You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
My understanding is that a "Full" refresh would give the same results as an On Demand refresh of the semantic model via the service. But I'm getting different results when it comes to Incremental Refresh.
When triggering the full refresh via VS Code, partitions are not created or dropped as expected.
This is following a VS Code Full refresh on 6/26, for a model that has an IR policy enabled for Monthly partitions:
I was surprised to not see a new partition created for 2024Q206.
Two days later (with no other changes) I triggered an On Demand refresh via the service and got the expected result:
I'm on v2.1.1 of the extension and I've experienced this with a few different models. Let me know if I have a misunderstanding of the expected functionality.
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
there was another issue #27 where we explicitly set the applyRefreshPolicy to false
guess I have to rework this and make it more granular
e.g. if you select a partition -> applyRefreshPolicy = false
if you select a table/whole dataset -> applyRefreshPolicy = true
My understanding is that a "Full" refresh would give the same results as an On Demand refresh of the semantic model via the service. But I'm getting different results when it comes to Incremental Refresh.
When triggering the full refresh via VS Code, partitions are not created or dropped as expected.
This is following a VS Code Full refresh on 6/26, for a model that has an IR policy enabled for Monthly partitions:
I was surprised to not see a new partition created for 2024Q206.
Two days later (with no other changes) I triggered an On Demand refresh via the service and got the expected result:
I'm on v2.1.1 of the extension and I've experienced this with a few different models. Let me know if I have a misunderstanding of the expected functionality.
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: