SAinCA

My feedback

  1. 165 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    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 →
    SAinCA supported this idea  · 
  2. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    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 →
    SAinCA commented  · 

    As posted: (I should say that partitioning has been tried but found to not suit the need. Multi-part natural key; partial-key select/update/delete requirements; deployment challenges at self-administered customer implementations, to name a few hurdles.)

    The last but one phrase renders the suggestion unworkable. Too many of our customers, even considering they are purchasing an ERP solution, do not engage DBAs with even basic knowledge of SQL Server, let alone expect them to deploy and manage a plethora of filegroups. Just last week we met a self-administered customer's "it's too slow" SQL VM with 2 vCPUs, 0 MAXDOP, 5 Cost threshold, Auto-shrink, IO at 4 seconds avg tempdb... And that is sadly all too often the likes of what we encounter. KISS is essential. That may have been a VM, but we meet "challenged" iron, too.

    Thanks, though, for the suggestion, Paulo.

    SAinCA shared this idea  · 
  3. 1,055 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    unplanned  ·  83 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    SAinCA supported this idea  · 
  4. 12 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    SAinCA supported this idea  · 
  5. 36 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 173

    <=-=Sep 27 2010 2:23PM=-=>

    Hi Itzik,
    Thanks for your feedback on WINDOW clause. We will consider it for a future version of SQL Server.


    Umachandar, SQL Programmability Team

    <=-=Mar 21 2011 8:27PM=-=>

    I’m currently migrating an established application from another database platform to SQL Server. There’s a big, powerful chunk of the app missing due to the absence of the WINDOW clause functionality.

    I wouldn’t even want to think of how to implement this type of processing in SQLCLR, if that’s even possible.

    And if WINDOW is standard SQL, shouldn’t it be included in the Microsoft product? Competitors have it.

    <=-=Mar 2 2012 1:18PM=-=>

    Reuse of Window Definitions with WINDOW Clause
    This has been rolled up into our “Window Aggregates Enhancements” DCR for future consideration. Thank you for reporting it. All the information you provided has been captured for future reference.

    Thanks,
    Marc Friedman

    <=-=Nov…
    SAinCA supported this idea  · 
  6. 332 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    14 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…

    SAinCA supported this idea  · 
  7. 90 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 176

    <=-=Nov 13 2007 12:37AM=-=>

    Hello

    Thank you for your feedback. We’re certainly considering row value constructors for a future release of SQL Server.

    - Sara Tahir
    Microsoft SQL Server

    <=-=Aug 11 2010 8:03AM=-=>

    I think row constructors would be a great and important addition to T-SQL. Just wanted to point out a few more cases that I’d love to see implemented:


    - Assignment
    -
    —————————————————————————————————-

    UPDATE dbo.T1
    SET (c1, c2, c3) = (@p1, @p2, @p3)
    WHERE keycol = @key;

    — Logically equivalent to:

    UPDATE dbo.T1
    SET c1 = @p1,
    c2 = @p2,
    c3 = @p3
    WHERE keycol = @key;

    — Or with a subquery:

    UPDATE dbo.T1
    SET (c1, c2, c3) = (SELECT T2.c1, T2.c2, T2.c3
    FROM T2
    WHERE T2.keycol = T1.keycol)
    WHERE keycol = @key;

    — Logically equivalent to:
    UPDATE dbo.T1
    SET c1 = (SELECT T2.c1
    FROM T2
    WHERE T2.keycol = T1.keycol),
    c2 =…

    SAinCA supported this idea  · 
  8. 95 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    SAinCA supported this idea  · 
  9. 59 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    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 →
    SAinCA supported this idea  · 
  10. 354 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 8

    <=-=Mar 5 2017 2:42PM=-=>

    Thanks for this idea. This is a valid requirement and I hope that it will get more votes. Currently we cannot confirm when it will be added, but it is in our backlog.

    <=-=May 22 2017 5:03AM=-=>

    would like it very much, particularly since you already have the CONCAT / GREATEST() a variable number of paramenters and does something with it…

    <=-=Jun 5 2017 12:31PM=-=>

    GREATEST / LEAST functions would be fantastic addition.

    <=-=Nov 14 2017 3:42PM=-=>

    The workarounds using CROSS APPLY or CASE expressions are difficult to manage and read. I’d love to see these implemented.

    SAinCA supported this idea  · 
  11. 121 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  6 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    SAinCA supported this idea  · 
  12. 323 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 249

    <=-=Oct 4 2016 2:15PM=-=>

    This is similar to my feedback located here: https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/2769130/sql-2016-temporal-tables-with-triggers. The solution I suggest is similar to this, and could be used in many different cases developing using SQL server.

    <=-=Jan 10 2017 9:43AM=-=>

    I would love this too. The issue is that many/most applications don’t use Windows Auth in the connection to SQL Server (connection pooling issues, etc), so SQL can’t get the User information

    <=-=Jan 10 2017 9:51AM=-=>

    @Sanford

    Just to clarify, I am not asking for an “automatically store user name” feature. I’m asking for “automatically store whatever I want, based on whatever expression I provide.” So the fact that the user name may or may not be available is not really relevant.

    That said, there are plenty of workarounds for various situations. I imagine that if you’re using a shared connection, you can get some notion of “user” some other…

    SAinCA supported this idea  · 
  13. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 1

    <=-=Dec 13 2017 2:15AM=-=>

    https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/psssql/2009/06/05/sql-server-and-large-pages-explained/ says large pages require SQL Server Enterprise Edition. That post is rather old, but https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/3210239/interoperability-of-columnstore-indexes-with-large-page-memory-model-i was updated in October 2017 and still links to it, so I assume they’d update the post if this requirement were no longer true.

    https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc645993(v=sql.120).aspx says “NUMA Aware Large Page Memory and Buffer Array Allocation” in SQL Server 2014 requires Enterprise Edition, but it is not clear to me whether this covers NUMA-unaware large pages as well. Likewise in https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/sql-server/editions-and-components-of-sql-server-2017

    SAinCA supported this idea  · 
  14. 22 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Could this also help 3rd-party monitoring tools that can swamp deadlock occurrence lists with exchange-event deadlocks, which hide the real deadlocks we want to resolve in code? Solarwinds DPA for one. Hope this gets traction - we can start to see the wood for the trees.

    SAinCA supported this idea  · 
  15. 201 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  9 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    SAinCA supported this idea  · 
  16. 3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

Feedback and Knowledge Base