This is actually brings up a good topic we have discussed previously with @Aram, namely I do not think Insights database’s schema is very well designed/structured… I get why it is like that cause it essentially mirrors the structure of the BFEnterprise database (only merging QuestionsResults & LongQuestionsResults, and even that has a lot to be desired by cutting the data at 4000 characters) and that does make it better in a sense but if you try to build a complex report with a large number of custom properties where you expect each property to be a column and the devices in separate rows (just like you would in Web Reports with a table-like output) - it becomes EXTREMELY painful in a hurry and processing times start becoming a problem, especially if any of the properties contain more data just because each of those custom properties you have to do another join that goes through [datasource_property_results]. I am not DBA, so maybe I am missing something (there may be a different way to achieve this) but based on my own knowledge here I stand. Consider this example where it retrieves - 3 default properties (Computer Name, Agent Type & Last Report time) and 4 custom properties, where the filter is to display non-deleted machines of agent type = Native, and notice how complicated the query is and what it’s execution time was over 8 hours across 20k devices (that’s not even touching the historical data at all).

I even specifically watched the replay of the PowerBI with Insights data source webinar from September to see if maybe I am doing something completely wrong and the way the same exact scenario (retrieving 4-5 custom properties) they don’t even bother to attempt it as a single query (most-likely for the afore-mentioned reasons) and instead build 5 separate data sources where each runs the same exact query but for a different custom property and then let PowerBI data modelling take care of making the relationship between each separate data source… If we have to do this each time that is not a good situation to be in though, is it?