Paul White

My feedback

  1. 5 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  2. 8 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  3. 9 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  4. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 38

    <=-=Nov 28 2009 10:48AM=-=>

    There was a question about the statement above that CHECKSUM can produce different hash values dependent on the platform (32-bit or 64-bit). Here are some simple tests to demonstrate this:

    —First test query:
    SELECT CHECKSUM, CHECKSUM;
    —Results on SQL 2008 32-bit: 2306, 2306
    —Results on SQL 2008 64-bit: 554584078, -1626451698

    —Second test query:
    WITH CTE
    AS
    (
    SELECT 65 AS c
    UNION ALL
    SELECT c + 1
    FROM CTE
    WHERE c < 90
    )
    SELECTCHAR + CHAR,
    CHECKSUM + CHAR),
    COUNT
    FROM CTE c1
    CROSS JOIN CTE c2
    GROUP BY CHECKSUM + CHAR)
    HAVING COUNT > 1;
    —Results on SQL 2008 32-bit: 244 two-letter combinations of ‘AA’ – ‘ZZ’ produce duplicate checksums
    —Results on SQL 2008 64-bit: 0 two-letter combinations of ‘AA’ – ‘ZZ’ produce duplicate checksums; checksums generated are different from 32-bit checksums

    —Third test query:…

    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  5. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 34

    <=-=Aug 13 2010 5:13PM=-=>

    Thanks for contacting SQL Server team. This is a great suggestion. At this time, SQL Server does not support parallel DML operations and this suggestion is one such dimension. We will consider this in a future release

    Thanks
    Sunil

    <=-=Aug 15 2013 7:24PM=-=>

    Will this be in the next SQL Server 2014 release?

    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  6. 3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  7. 5 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  8. 6 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  9. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 76

    <=-=Oct 26 2012 11:30AM=-=>

    Thanks for the feedback, we are looking into this request

    <=-=Sep 17 2013 2:44PM=-=>

    Thank you for submitting this feedback. After carefully evaluating all of the bugs in our pipeline, we are closing bugs that we will not fix in the current or future versions of SQL Server. This is because the fix is risky to implement.
    Thanks again for reporting the product issue and continued support in improving our product.

    <=-=Dec 2 2015 2:45AM=-=>

    This is something we are investigating, and needs thorough testing. This is so we do not introduce wide-spread regressions, like in cases when we had the CE underestimate, and then we would not have had not enough memory granted, leading to spills otherwise.

    <=-=Jan 3 2017 9:52AM=-=>

    Tested and confirmed fixed in SQL Server 2016 Service Pack 1 (build 13.0.4001.0)

    <=-=Jan 3 2017 10:23AM=-=>

    Actually, no. A related item…

    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  10. 6 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 220

    <=-=Dec 21 2011 10:50AM=-=>

    Thanks for the suggestion. We will consider this for a future release. There is an undocumented trace flag 8649 to set the cost overhead of parallelism to 0. This may provide some relief, but is not a full solution. You can use it in a query hint in the form OPTION.

    Best regards,
    Eric Hanson
    Program Manger
    SQL Server Query Processing

    <=-=Dec 21 2011 3:39PM=-=>

    Hi Eric,

    Thanks for the very quick response. TF 8649 is indeed very helpful – perhaps we’re not so far away from seeing a PARALLEL_PLAN or MINDOP hint as I thought! Very cool, thanks again.

    Paul

    <=-=Feb 20 2014 1:02AM=-=>

    Any update on this? a normal hint would be much better than some undocumented or short term workarounds.

    <=-=Jun 8 2014 10:04PM=-=>

    Any update? It’s been a couple of years….

    <=-=Dec 1 2014 1:26AM=-=>

    I have major problem…

    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  11. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 24

    <=-=Jan 4 2011 4:40PM=-=>

    Hi Bob,

    Thanks for the feedback. We’ll consider fixing this in a future release. Can you tell me more about the scenario? What UDAgg were you implementing and why? Feel free to contact me by email if you want.

    Best regards,
    Eric Hanson
    Program Manager, SQL Server Query Processing
    eric.n.hanson@microsoft.com

    <=-=Jan 4 2011 5:15PM=-=>

    Sure Eric, there are a few that I can think of. This actually came about because of the following forum question:
    http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/sqlnetfx/thread/957a5b94-c7d0-49d8-928d-7cccff14b0c6. I realized that the sort was required because of choice of stream aggregate. And he can’t put on every index possible to get rid of the sort.

    Second is that the spatial aggregates in Denali would need this funtionality. Related to that is that there’s a vendor product that consists of a library of UDAs, Fuzzy Logix (http://www.fuzzyl.com/in-database_analytics.php#) that could benefit from this flexibility as…

    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  12. 152 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    8 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…

    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  13. 12 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  14. 5 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  15. 7 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  16. 22 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    7 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  17. 28 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Note: this is a behavior that is only observed in SSMS 18.0 Preview 4.

    It turned out that the migration to the new VS2017 Shell in SSMS 18.0 ended up changing the binding for the CTRL+D, which accidentally was a request from a few other users.

    Due to popular demand (and also to preserve the old behavior), I’m going to bring back CTRL+D and have it bound to the ResultToGrid in the Query Editor.

    I’m going to bind the “Edit.Duplicate” to CTRL-K, CTRL+V, which is consistent with the current VS2017 behavior.

    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  18. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    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 →
    Paul White shared this idea  · 
  19. 8 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Paul White supported this idea  · 
  20. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Paul White supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base