Daniel Adeniji

My feedback

  1. 2 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 » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Daniel Adeniji supported this idea  · 
  2. 554 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…

    Daniel Adeniji supported this idea  · 
  3. 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 →
    Daniel Adeniji shared this idea  · 
  4. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  (General Feedback) » Other  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Daniel Adeniji shared this idea  · 
  5. 29 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 » Setup + Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Daniel Adeniji supported this idea  · 
  6. 27 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 →
    Daniel Adeniji supported this idea  · 
  7. 35 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: 18

    <=-=Jan 12 2015 10:03PM=-=>

    Thank you for submitting this feedback. After carefully evaluating the bug, we accept the bug as a valid bug that we will plan to fix it. We do not have a specific release date at this point but we will work on this feature, and will try to release it in the next version of SQL Server.

    Thanks again for reporting the product issue and continued support in improving our product.

    thanks
    SSIS team

    Daniel Adeniji supported this idea  · 
  8. 52 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 25

    <=-=Feb 7 2017 7:34PM=-=>

    Yes! I myself a use heavily inline table value functions and that would improve the clarity of their use even more!

    <=-=Mar 5 2017 2:48PM=-=>

    We understand the requirement, and it is good that it gets a lot of votes in very short period. It is in out backlog and we will consider it for some of the next releases; however, currently we cannot confirm when it will be implemented..

    <=-=Dec 22 2017 3:17PM=-=>

    This would be quite incredibly useful. When it was added to C#, it was a “so-what?” thing for me at the time – but now, I don’t know how I ever coded without named parameters. It has saved me countless hours getting things right the first time, and not chasing around dumb problems. I am sure the same would be true if SQL Server supported named parameters in User-Defined Functions.…

    Daniel Adeniji supported this idea  · 
  9. 67 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 54

    <=-=Sep 4 2007 12:29PM=-=>

    If this is considered for a future version of SQL Server, please implement it according to the ISO SQL standard. In other words, implement the SQL Standard , which provides regular expression support through the operator [NOT] SIMILAR TO, which in the standard remains separate from LIKE.

    <=-=Sep 5 2007 7:05AM=-=>

    Like Steve, I would also like to stress that any implementation should be as per ANSI (SIMILAR predicate). The CLR functionality is not a relevant design consideration.

    <=-=Oct 15 2007 8:43AM=-=>

    This is a request we’ve heard a lot, and it’s of obvious value. I can’t promise when we’ll get to it—-it’s doubtful for this release—-but this is certainly on our radar.

    Cheers,
    -Isaac

    <=-=Mar 24 2010 2:54PM=-=>

    Hi,
    I have resolved this request as duplicate of feedback item below:

    https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/261342/regex-functionality-in-pattern-matching?wa=wsignin1.0


    Umachandar, SQL Programmability Team

    <=-=Mar 24 2010…
    Daniel Adeniji supported this idea  · 
  10. 70 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    7 comments  ·  SQL Server » Setup + Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Daniel Adeniji supported this idea  · 
  11. 215 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 →
    Daniel Adeniji supported this idea  · 
  12. 219 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  10 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Daniel Adeniji supported this idea  · 
  13. 303 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…

    Daniel Adeniji supported this idea  · 
  14. 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 →
    Daniel Adeniji shared this idea  · 
  15. 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 →
    Daniel Adeniji shared this idea  · 
  16. 6 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 →

    Upvotes: 5

    <=-=May 31 2016 2:02AM=-=>

    What a ridiculous limit! sqlcmd only reads the input text file. Why is there a 2GB-limit?

    Even worse the error messages indicates something wrong with my SQL statements, just because text is truncated. Maybe you could give a hint about the file size limit instead of letting me search for errors in my file

    Have you ever migrated a database from another db vendor to SQLServer via dump?

    Please excuse me, I just lost three hours on that 32bit bug. I’m a little bit angry now.

    <=-=Aug 21 2016 3:08AM=-=>

    I have the same problem, but my input file is about 50GB of size. It was a long way to find this limitation, so I recommend that you will add this limitation in msdn documentation of sqlcmd.

    <=-=Jan 31 2017 3:03AM=-=>

    Totally agree.
    There are a wealth of reasons why people sometimes need to…

    Daniel Adeniji supported this idea  · 
  17. 1 vote
    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
    Daniel Adeniji commented  · 

    Is there an update on allowing Partial Database Restore that excludes the "Memory Optimized Filegroup" from the list of filegroups targeted for restore.

    Daniel Adeniji supported this idea  · 
  18. 147 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

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Daniel Adeniji commented  · 

    Family :-

    I spoke way too early.

    What triggers the no go back is actually creating memory optimized objects inside the database.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Daniel Adeniji commented  · 

    Family :-

    It appears that the issue of not been able to remove empty MEMORY_OPTIMIZED_DATA filegroups has been addressed.

    I tested against :-

    Version :- Microsoft SQL Server 2019 (CTP3.2) - 15.0.1800.32 (X64)

    Release Date :- 2019-July-17

    Documented here :-
    https://learningintheopen.org/2019/09/29/sql-server-database-management-v2019-ctp/

    Daniel Adeniji supported this idea  · 
  19. 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 →
    Daniel Adeniji shared this idea  · 
  20. 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 →
    Daniel Adeniji shared this idea  · 
← Previous 1 3 4 5

Feedback and Knowledge Base