Update: Microsoft will be moving away from UserVoice sites on a product-by-product basis throughout the 2021 calendar year. We will leverage 1st party solutions for customer feedback. Learn more here.

Anonymous

My feedback

  1. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 15

    <=-=Aug 16 2007 12:58PM=-=>

    Hi,
    Thank you for your feedback on TVP. This is a known current Katmai Restriction and requires substantial additional work to enable output/return parameters. We are planning to address this issue in the next major release of SQLServer. A possible current workaround for this is to use Table valued functions that return table structures back.

    Srini Acharya
    Senior Program Manager, Relational Engine.

    <=-=Feb 13 2009 1:29PM=-=>

    Hi Alexey,
    I have resolved this request as duplicate of feedback item below:

    https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=299296


    Umachandar, SQL Programmability Team

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  2. 24 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    5 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 337

    <=-=Oct 1 2007 2:40AM=-=>

    I could not agree less.This is more of ‘SHOULD HAVE’ and every T-SQL developer would love SQL server even more should this be implemented.

    <=-=Oct 4 2007 2:22PM=-=>

    I agree. Microsoft, if you’re listening, please implement this!

    <=-=Oct 10 2007 7:33AM=-=>

    I think it is very important.

    Alex Kuznetsov,
    SQL Server MVP

    <=-=Oct 22 2007 2:25AM=-=>

    I agree. It would be a very nice and powerfull feature in SQL server 2008.

    <=-=Oct 22 2007 5:57AM=-=>

    Unless there is a very good reason not to, I urge you to implement it, it would be very useful.

    <=-=Nov 4 2007 11:40AM=-=>

    TVPs should definitely not be limited to being read-only. Without updateability, they will be perceived as an “impaired” new feature. As lead author in the upcoming Programming Microsoft SQL Server 2008 book by MS Press, I urge the SQL team to support…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    This idea is approaching its **14th** birthday now and it’s really time it was implemented! Please can Microsoft follow the suggestions of the experienced SQL Server users who have posted above and below.

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  3. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 2

    <=-=Dec 7 2009 2:28PM=-=>

    Thanks for your request. We are gathering asks for such specific XQuery functions and will add them based on customer requests and available resources. Until we have added this, the current workaround is to use the value() method to extract the value and perform the like predicate in SQL. If it is needed as a filter in a path, you would need to use the nodes() method to break the path open to insert the relational filter.

    Cheers
    Michael

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    Agreed with the comment - XQuery is very useful and should be kept up to date.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    SQL Server XQuery definitely needs some improvements. Nothing much has been done to it since the initial release with SQL Server 2008!

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  4. 4 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 14

    <=-=May 20 2015 1:26AM=-=>

    Yes. It would be nice. Having CPU/Core limitations and concurrent connection limitations are a much better than size limitations.

    <=-=Aug 10 2015 4:23AM=-=>

    Today 10GB data including BLOB s are very very small.
    We Love Microsoft SQL Server and want to stay on it. But if Microsoft will ignore our very kind request about increasing size limitation.
    We will have to move to SQLite or Postgres that Personal do not want.

    Please review your policy on SQL Express Limitations

    <=-=Aug 10 2016 4:30AM=-=>

    SQL 2016 Express was released, with retain of 10GB limitation. but this feedback still open
    does it means that Microsoft still considering to increase this limitation ? (in service pack1) ?

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  5. 7 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 3

    <=-=Apr 24 2015 5:53AM=-=>

    I couldn’t agree more with Chandan. I’d add that you should remove some of the cache limitations too. Chandan’s experience is my exact experience too…my clients are moving to Postgres to save money. They start by moving non-critical, micro-service databases to Postgres. After they see how easy it is to do and how much money they save they quickly move all greenfield projects to Postgres. Then they start talking about migrating more stuff. You guys really screwed the pooch with your licensing changes in 2012.

    Here’s the rub…in the process of moving to a different data platform they are also making the move to different development stacks. So instead of just losing your SQL Server licensing $$$ you are also losing your MSDN subscribers. Whereas, if you considered giving Express away with larger db sizes you could at least retain the tools licensing. Generally…

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  6. 681 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    30 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 72

    <=-=Mar 10 2016 11:26AM=-=>

    It’s a shame that this was submitted as just a “suggestion”. It should actually be listed as a “bug” because there’s only a comparatively small set of use cases where enumeration of the result set of elements is not important.

    <=-=Mar 11 2016 12:47PM=-=>

    I agree that an order column is required; one example use case is where two lists are passed in, and ordinal positions in one list correspond to positions in the other.

    <=-=Mar 11 2016 3:12PM=-=>

    Please see the related suggestion: STRING_SPLIT needs “RemoveEmptyEntries” option, like String.Split in .NET ( https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/2462002/ ).

    <=-=Mar 12 2016 12:02PM=-=>

    This kind of function is primarily needed for de-serializing previously serialized arrays of values of any type format-able as text.
    I therefore recommend to have the result set of this function work excellent with this use-case.

    With de-serialized arrays there is a need to…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    Dear Microsoft - this needs doing and many wise folk who are SQL Server evangelists have confirmed this. It shouldn't take 5 years to do, so please can you implement this for SQL Server 2021.

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  7. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  8. 7 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  2 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    This would be very useful

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  9. 13 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  10. 5 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  11. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    A trigger can easily do this - why would you not want to use a trigger here?

  12. 570 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    97 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    100% agree, XQuery in SQL Server has essentially been unaltered since the SQL 2008 release. There are many improvements which should be added to SQL Server.

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  13. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 2

    <=-=Aug 30 2006 5:15PM=-=>

    Dear Adolfo

    Thanks for your valuable feedback. We will look into your request and consider it for one of the upcoming releases based on general customer usability and other prioritizations.

    Best regards
    Michael

    PS: Please do not forget to vote and indicate your priority.

    <=-=May 19 2008 7:49AM=-=>

    As you know, the XQuery expressions currently only operate on a single XML datatype instance and not across a set of XML documents. While you could theoretically stuff everything into a single XML row and column, and simplify the XQuery expression, the resulting system would not scale well (too many locks on inserts) and would not perform well. Also, as Adolfo explains, to do queries over different XML documents, the query is mixed between XQUERY, T-SQL and XPATH.

    There is real feature to develop for SQL 08 and it is a concept of…

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  14. 7 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 39

    <=-=Dec 3 2008 4:28PM=-=>

    Thanks for the feedback. The following shows how we would have to approach this.

    The nodes() method returns N rows one for each node selected by the expression inside the nodes() method. Each of that node is being set as the context item for the expressions inside the value/query/exist/nodes methods. The definition of the position() function is

    http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xpath-functions-20070123/#func-position

    16.1 fn:position
    fn:position() as xs:integer
    Summary: Returns the context position from the dynamic context.

    where context position is defined as:

    [Definition: The context position is the position of the context item within the sequence of items currently being processed.] It changes whenever the context item changes. When the focus is defined, the value of the context position is an integer greater than zero. The context position is returned by the expression fn:position(). When an expression E1/E2 or E1[E2] is evaluated, the context position in the inner…

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  15. 5 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 5

    <=-=Mar 16 2016 1:56AM=-=>

    To compensate for the competition it gives to paid versions of SQL Server, several workable methods are possible:

    • Reduce to 1 CPU core
    • Limit the amount or RAM the instance can use
    • Limit the number of concurrent connections or operations by using a queue.

    Reduced performance is generally not a problem for free versions, but compatibility issues like maximum database size are!

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  16. 5 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  17. 7 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  18. 222 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    8 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 278

    <=-=Feb 1 2008 7:18PM=-=>

    Thanks for the valuable suggestion.

    This seems more like adding the sequence support which we’re seriously considering for the next major release.

    Meanwhile, would using identity column help?

    <=-=Feb 2 2008 2:11AM=-=>

    It does not seem that you understood the request. This definitely has nothing to do with
    IDENTITY. I am less versed about sequences, but I don’t think they will cut it either. If you think
    it does, maybe you could provide an example? Take this problem: For the Orders table in
    Northwind, write a query that lists the number of orders for all days in 1997. The result set should
    include all 365 days, and list zero for days without a number.

    This is a typical problem where you need a table of of numbers (or dates). While it’s easy to
    create such a table, I argue in this request that…

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base