Shane Seibert

My feedback

  1. 232 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  7 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Shane Seibert commented  · 

    I'm with Karl et al, any kind of progress indicator to help us make an estimate, track progress. The business counts on us and all we can tell them is "I started a restore and it appears to still be running." Of course, we are doing a restore, and we are probably all needing something out of it and being blind to its progression is a substantial detriment.

    Shane Seibert supported this idea  · 
  2. 18 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Managed Instance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Shane Seibert shared this idea  · 
  3. 36 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  SQL Data Sync  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Shane Seibert commented  · 

    It has been a very long time since this issue surfaces, however it just hit me today and the only error I was getting is invalid field datatype. The issue is two tables of the same table name but different schema names and the provisioning logic fails. If not supported at least a more appropriate error message about the collision in the datasync schema where the two cannot co-exist by current naming approaches. Maybe include the schema name as fully qualified or give us an option to pick a different scheama.table name when setting up the provisioned side of the sync

    Shane Seibert supported this idea  · 
  4. 15 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  SQL Data Sync  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    planned  ·  Shirley Wang responded

    Data Sync team is planning to improve initial synchronization performance by using bulk insert and other optimization techniques.

    Shane Seibert supported this idea  · 
  5. 17 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SQL Data Sync  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Shane Seibert supported this idea  · 
  6. 2,328 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    57 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Shane Seibert supported this idea  · 
  7. 158 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    11 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Shane Seibert commented  · 

    This would be a huge improvement on our ability to adopt PAAS db's for our portal implementation with power_bi. We need multiple DBs for assembly vs direct-query targets and getting the data from one to another after it's assembled would be much simpler with this.

    Shane Seibert supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base