Personalized Community is here!
Quickly customize your community to find the content you seek.
Have questions on moving to the cloud? Visit the Dynamics 365 Migration Community today! Microsoft’s extensive network of Dynamics AX and Dynamics CRM experts can help.
2021 Release Wave 2Discover the latest updates and new features releasing from October 2021 through March 2022.
2021 release wave 2 plan
The FastTrack program is designed to help you accelerate your Dynamics 365 deployment with confidence.
FastTrack Community | FastTrack Program | Finance and Operations TechTalks | Customer Engagement TechTalks | Upcoming TechTalks | All TechTalks
We noticed on 09/09 that our database capacity increased significantly. After analysis this seems to be related to an increase of the relevance search entity from 8GB to 22GB. A few days before this impact we had an issue with the relevance search and Microsoft advices to disable and enable the relevance search again to solve it.
Anyone notices this big increase as well and can we do anything about it? Because before our relevance search worked as expected. If MS changed something in the background of the relevance search impacting the capacity I don't think it is ok that this impact the customer without any notice.
One of the most common things on relevance Search, is that you can customize the fields in use (or the fields it's going to search on). Depending on the type of fields, you might get more storage used: for example, if you have numeric fields or text fields with a limit on characters, the indexes associated to the RelevanceSearch will be much smaller than the ones associated if you have multi-line fields (like Emails, Descriptions, etc). One first step would be to verify if you're using this type of fields on the relevance search and which ones are you using.
A second important step is that you can open a request to Microsoft Support to investigate this behavior. You should specify the environment URL and if you have a graph/Screenshot with the values.
Thanks for the information. We logged it at MS but they state it not an MS issue which I don't fully agree with.
The relevance search always took about 8 GB of DB capacity on our end and increased to 22 GB while on our end there has nothing been changed that might explain this:
1) No massive data import.
2) No change to fields included in the relevance search.
3) No change to entities included in the relevance search.
Has anyone else experienced this behavior?
Business Applications communities