Rob Nicholson

My feedback

  1. 249 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    10 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  2. 20 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 →
    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  3. 23 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 →
    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  4. 150 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  5. 1,095 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    101 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  6. 10 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  3 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  7. 567 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 →
    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  8. 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 » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 13

    <=-=Oct 12 2010 10:39AM=-=>

    Jason, thanks for contacting Microsoft SQL Server team. I am wondering if sys.dm_db_index_usage_stats is more appropriate for the specific scenario you have mentioned? I agree that INSERT operation gets increasingly more expensive with numnber of indexes but for large tables, if the index is missing, the SQL Server will be forced to scan the full table. So the real measure is how many rows will need to be read if the index was missing. SQL Optimizer chooses indexes only when doing table scan is not cost effective. So I think index usage stats should be a very good indicator.

    Please let us know what you think?
    thanks
    Sunil

    <=-=Nov 8 2010 2:14PM=-=>

    sys.dm_db_index_usage_stats provides some useful information, but doesn’t fully cover the scenario I am looking at. Part of the problem with sys.dm_db_index_usage_stats is that delete and inserts are included in seek operations. Also,…

    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  9. 3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Rob Nicholson shared this idea  · 
  10. 22 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 →
    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  11. 7 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    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 →
    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  12. 14 votes
    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 →
    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  13. 4 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 →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Rob Nicholson commented  · 

    It would be very useful to know how much memory a database requires before kicking off the restore procedure. Allowing administrators how much memory is require would potentially save downtime from avoiding repeated restore attempts

    Also on database startup the current messages (SQL 2017) for insufficient memory for database startup are not very helpful. “Close other applications to increase the available memory, ensure that both SQL Server memory configuration and resource pool memory limits are correct and try again”, this is nice but how much memory does it would be nice to know how much it actually needs.

    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  14. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  15. 154 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 3

    <=-=Jan 8 2018 12:16PM=-=>

    Thanks for the suggestion.
    We’ll consider it for a future release.

    Are there specific limitations imposed when you have the filegroup, e.g., no database snapshot, that hold you back from creating the filegroup?
    Or is it only the feeling of not being able to turn back?


    Jos de Bruijn – Database Systems PM

    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  16. 221 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  21 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  17. 101 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  18. 459 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    35 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  19. 58 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    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 →
    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
  20. 2,217 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    288 comments  ·  Virtual Machines  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote which allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature list and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature

    Rob Nicholson supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base