Customize fields list ordering
At least as an option, allow fields to be ordered the same as the source query rather than alphabetical. This way they can be put in a logical and consistent order.
Obviously, a workaround is to prefix each column name with a number but this is clunky, unattractive and a pain if the columns change often.
It would be helpful to have the Field pane carry over the structure of the Queries pane in the Edit Query view. This allows a report writer to easily navigate the field pane grouped together in logical groups. Thanks.
Fred Stimler commented
Please use the sort order of the source - I can never find my fields
This is really super-annoying. Users complain a lot because in Excel PowerPivot it works by setting a checkbox - alphabetic order, data source order - in the option window.
allow fields to be ordered the same as the source query rather than alphabetical.
Typically the type of distinctive feature between professional and amateur software. Please implement asap.
Missy Jaroneski commented
Some time back, MS added the ability to group the queries in the Query Builder - this has helped tremendously. BUT, we need to have these groupings ("Folders") carry into the report-building experience. In a model that has dozens of queries, we need something more than alphabetical order as the organization of them in the "fields" pane.
Seems like this would be easy to do. The alphabetical list is super-annoying and unnecessarily requires me to use my recollection of the alphabet.
When you query into Power BI the columns stay in order for the data view. However, the Fields Pane sorts the column titles (headers) alphabetically. This is slightly problematic as it creates inconsistencies in how the data is organized. Not a big deal, but it would be nice if things would all stay sorted the same way.
bob the builder commented
the default design is studid. it should be based on original order as it loads into the query. the ideal case is to have an option in the panel.
just started getting into using power BI and this nuance is making me want to look elsewhere for creating reports. this increases the amount of time i have to spend creating reports because i constantly have to look back at my original table to confirm the order of fields.
Microsoft, why are you applying any type of sort here. This just seems silly. If you think you are being helpful then you are very wrong.
Linda Sarace commented
When building reports (what we call "thin" reports) in Power BI Desktop from an existing data model (used Power BI Dataset option for the Get Data to retrieve a data model), we need the table/query structure from the model to be the way the table/query structure in presented in the Fields section within Power BI.
In Query Editor within a data model a table/query structure may look like this:
Order Subject Area 
Unified Order Line
Shipment Subject Area 
When this model is sourced into Power BI Desktop, the Fields panel should present the structure just as it appears above. At current it simply places the queries in alphabetical order
Eli Kleinberger commented
Original order should be the default - other custom orders should be optional. I you don't give the user options, at least let us keep our original order please!
Let's go Microsoft.
Please implement. Even the Pivot table in Excel has this basic feature.
Please implement this. We need to organize the fields as per our business logic and not in alphabetic order
Please add this. Absolutely essential!
William S Thomas commented
Currently the FIELDS area lists fields by alphabetic order within a data object (or EXCEL file). There is no option to display fields in the order they appear in the data object or in the EXCEL file. This makes it more difficult to find fields because they are out of order and scrambled when compared to an Excel workbook or data file.
Therefore, Provide the option to list fields by their order within worksheets and other objects OR alphabetically.
This is a standard is just about every tool I've used. why microsoft is lagging on this? its a simple option.
How has this still not been implemented 2.5 years after being requested?
I also fully agree on that.