Paul White

My feedback

  1. 2 votes
    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      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  · 
    • 3 votes
      Sign in
      Check!
      (thinking…)
      Reset
      or sign in with
      • facebook
      • google
        Password icon
        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  · 
      • 1 vote
        Sign in
        Check!
        (thinking…)
        Reset
        or sign in with
        • facebook
        • google
          Password icon
          Signed in as (Sign out)

          We’ll send you updates on this idea

          0 comments  ·  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  · 
        • 78 votes
          Sign in
          Check!
          (thinking…)
          Reset
          or sign in with
          • facebook
          • google
            Password icon
            Signed in as (Sign out)

            We’ll send you updates on this idea

            5 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  · 
          • 4 votes
            Sign in
            Check!
            (thinking…)
            Reset
            or sign in with
            • facebook
            • google
              Password icon
              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 votes
              Sign in
              Check!
              (thinking…)
              Reset
              or sign in with
              • facebook
              • google
                Password icon
                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  · 
              • 6 votes
                Sign in
                Check!
                (thinking…)
                Reset
                or sign in with
                • facebook
                • google
                  Password icon
                  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 votes
                  Sign in
                  Check!
                  (thinking…)
                  Reset
                  or sign in with
                  • facebook
                  • google
                    Password icon
                    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  · 
                  • 26 votes
                    Sign in
                    Check!
                    (thinking…)
                    Reset
                    or sign in with
                    • facebook
                    • google
                      Password icon
                      Signed in as (Sign out)

                      We’ll send you updates on this idea

                      3 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  · 
                    • 4 votes
                      Sign in
                      Check!
                      (thinking…)
                      Reset
                      or sign in with
                      • facebook
                      • google
                        Password icon
                        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  · 
                      • 2 votes
                        Sign in
                        Check!
                        (thinking…)
                        Reset
                        or sign in with
                        • facebook
                        • google
                          Password icon
                          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  · 
                        • 4 votes
                          Sign in
                          Check!
                          (thinking…)
                          Reset
                          or sign in with
                          • facebook
                          • google
                            Password icon
                            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  · 
                          • 8 votes
                            Sign in
                            Check!
                            (thinking…)
                            Reset
                            or sign in with
                            • facebook
                            • google
                              Password icon
                              Signed in as (Sign out)

                              We’ll send you updates on this idea

                              under review  ·  3 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
                              Paul White commented  · 

                              Works with other streaming UDF sources as well e.g.

                              BEGIN TRANSACTION;

                              SELECT
                              DOBD.[file_id],
                              DOBD.page_id,
                              DOBD.page_level,
                              DOBD.allocation_unit_id,
                              DOBD.page_type,
                              DOBD.row_count
                              INTO SomeNewTable
                              FROM sys.dm_os_buffer_descriptors AS DOBD;

                              Paul White supported this idea  · 
                            • 8 votes
                              Sign in
                              Check!
                              (thinking…)
                              Reset
                              or sign in with
                              • facebook
                              • google
                                Password icon
                                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  · 
                              • 4 votes
                                Sign in
                                Check!
                                (thinking…)
                                Reset
                                or sign in with
                                • facebook
                                • google
                                  Password icon
                                  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  · 
                                • 1 vote
                                  Sign in
                                  Check!
                                  (thinking…)
                                  Reset
                                  or sign in with
                                  • facebook
                                  • google
                                    Password icon
                                    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 commented  · 

                                    The following table-level index works on SQL Server 2014 onward (persisted or not):

                                    CREATE TABLE dbo.Example1
                                    (
                                    a1 integer NOT NULL,
                                    a2 integer NOT NULL,
                                    d AS a1 + a2,

                                    INDEX i (d)
                                    );

                                    It only fails as a column-level index specification.

                                  • 37 votes
                                    Sign in
                                    Check!
                                    (thinking…)
                                    Reset
                                    or sign in with
                                    • facebook
                                    • google
                                      Password icon
                                      Signed in as (Sign out)

                                      We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

                                      Upvotes: 60

                                      <=-=Mar 29 2017 11:32PM=-=>

                                      Just wanted to add that both Oracle and DB2 seem to support this feature:

                                      http://docs.oracle.com/database/122/SQLRF/LAG.htm#SQLRF00652
                                      https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSGU8G_12.1.0/com.ibm.sqls.doc/ids_sqs_1513.htm

                                      Cheers,
                                      Itzik

                                      <=-=Apr 16 2017 10:08PM=-=>

                                      That last IBM link was for Informix!

                                      The DB2 link is https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSEPGG_11.1.0/com.ibm.db2.luw.sql.ref.doc/doc/r0023461.html

                                      <=-=Jul 4 2017 3:30AM=-=>

                                      Thanks for reporting this request.
                                      It is in our backlog, and we have planned to do something like this, but we cannot confirm when it would be completed.

                                      Jovan

                                      <=-=Jul 10 2017 11:54AM=-=>

                                      Thanks, Jovan; good to hear.

                                      Paul White supported this idea  · 
                                    • 76 votes
                                      Sign in
                                      Check!
                                      (thinking…)
                                      Reset
                                      or sign in with
                                      • facebook
                                      • google
                                        Password icon
                                        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 →
                                        Paul White supported this idea  · 
                                      • 5 votes
                                        Sign in
                                        Check!
                                        (thinking…)
                                        Reset
                                        or sign in with
                                        • facebook
                                        • google
                                          Password icon
                                          Signed in as (Sign out)

                                          We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

                                          Upvotes: 8

                                          <=-=Mar 4 2017 9:33AM=-=>

                                          We understand the problem. XML is designed differently and the goal was to provide rich query language with XPath support, which might require a lot of memory and processing logic. OPENJSON is designed to be more lightweight and just scan JSON text and return values where it finds them. There are pros and cons for both approaches (similar to pros and cons for DOM and SAX parsers).

                                          The key differentiators between JSON and XML is the fact that JSON is better for scan based processing of JSON columns where you just pick few values from JSON text, and XML is better for rich querying and indexing.

                                          I will keep this item open and let people vote for this; however, we cannot guarantee that this kind of re-design of XML will be done in near future.

                                          If you need to use shredded nodes in some…

                                          Paul White supported this idea  · 
                                        • 6 votes
                                          Sign in
                                          Check!
                                          (thinking…)
                                          Reset
                                          or sign in with
                                          • facebook
                                          • google
                                            Password icon
                                            Signed in as (Sign out)

                                            We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

                                            Upvotes: 82

                                            <=-=Mar 3 2010 10:44AM=-=>

                                            Hi Erland,
                                            Thanks for your feedback. We are aware of this request and hope to address it in a future version of SQL Server.


                                            Umachandar, SQL Programmability Team

                                            <=-=Jul 21 2010 5:36PM=-=>

                                            This bug cost me and others about 8 hours of troubleshooting this week. And the query was working until statistics were updated. That’s the spooky part, that a new join order can cause an error in a previously-working query. This was compounded by the fact that the query was in a UDF and 1) error messages don’t list the line in the UDF but rather the calling SP and 2) I know of no way to see the execution plan of a UDF, which would have helped because I could have seen in the plan the conversion to float before the JOIN to the filtering table.

                                            <=-=Mar 9 2011 12:08PM=-=>

                                            Paul White supported this idea  · 
                                          ← Previous 1

                                          Feedback and Knowledge Base