Lajos Marton

My feedback

  1. 564 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    16 comments  ·  Azure Cosmos DB » SQL API  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  2. 502 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    7 comments  ·  Azure Cosmos DB » SQL API  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for your feedback. I have discussed this in more detail with our team.

    You are correct the workaround suggested to use .AsEnumerable().FirstOrDefault(). should not be a recommended work around. This way results in materializing all documents on the client first before getting the 1st document, which is not very efficient and the exact opposite of what you are trying to achieve.

    Instead we recommend you use Take(1).AsEnumerable() and then .First() or .Single() or .FirstOrDefault() for Single() and First(). Take(1) is translated to SELECT TOP 1 and is processed server-side so more efficient than the previous suggestion and is what you are trying to achieve.

    As to the original ask. The support for these operations can be done, but this work is not prioritized against the other work we want to deliver. I will move this back as unplanned but please note this is on our roadmap.

    Thanks again…

    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  3. 1,597 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    26 comments  ·  Web Apps  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lajos Marton commented  · 

    @Ty Cahill do you seriously believe in marketing bullshits? :D This "feature request" (I think this is not a feature request, but a bug fix for original almost useless implementation) is in under review state, so in a few years it will be solved by Azure devs.

    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  4. 628 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Web Apps  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  5. 396 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Web Apps » Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  6. 505 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    22 comments  ·  Web Apps » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  7. 1,576 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    unplanned  ·  174 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  8. 539 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    27 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…

    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  9. 295 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: 127

    <=-=Jun 23 2015 8:37AM=-=>

    I’m the first to post a useful comment. This must make me special.

    Seriously though, this would be an excellent solution to having to create a new “scratchdb” to hold my interim ETL data. This would be a major plus in simplifying design of a high performance app.

    <=-=Jul 3 2015 5:04AM=-=>

    In 2014, memory optimized tables, and delayed durability can be used help mitigate these Issues. However neither of this are always completely viable solutions. Brent’s proposed solution is likely the simplest way to achieve this with the least amount of unwanted impact. It is important to note that other platforms implement similar functionality as well. Notably Oracle.

    <=-=Nov 29 2016 3:58PM=-=>

    There are so many good things about this suggestion. I am amazed that SQL does not have the capability to turn off logging for certain tables that you define as no…

    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  10. 422 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    13 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.

    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  11. 36 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Networking » Content Delivery Network  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Lajos Marton shared this idea  · 
  12. 81 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    planned  ·  3 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  13. 591 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    29 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  14. 478 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    34 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  15. 213 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    7 comments  ·  Storage » Tables  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lajos Marton commented  · 

    My most painful point is the 32Kb limit of property size. If I use it as a key - value store (and why not, actually it is), then I can't use the 1mb row limit, if I have only one key and one value in a row and value must be maximum 32Kb what is very tiny :(

  16. 4,990 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    122 comments  ·  Azure Cosmos DB » Other  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  17. 11 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    planned  ·  0 comments  ·  Networking » Content Delivery Network  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Lajos Marton shared this idea  · 
  18. 136 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    8 comments  ·  Networking » Content Delivery Network  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  19. 194 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    8 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
  20. 828 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    32 comments  ·  Azure Cosmos DB » SQL API  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Lajos Marton supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1 3

Feedback and Knowledge Base