Hugo Kornelis

My feedback

  1. 10 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hugo Kornelis supported this idea  · 
  2. 314 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    From Apr 24, 2019 (https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2019/04/24/sql-server-management-studio-ssms-18-0-released-for-general-availability/):
    Think of these two tools not as separate tools doing different things, but as one integrated tool. Each tool has different experiences built into it and can be launched from the other seamlessly.

    From Oct 20,2020 (https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2020/10/20/sql-server-management-studio-18-7-now-generally-available/):
    SQL Server Management Studio is a foundational tool for many working with Microsoft data solutions. First released in 2018, Azure Data Studio is a cross-platform and open source desktop environment for data professionals using the Azure Data family of on-premises and cloud data platform solutions. Architecturally, SQL Server Management Studio has long been combined with additional tools, including Profiler, Database Engine Tuning Advisor (DTA), and Database Mail. As Azure Data Studio continues to mature, the Microsoft data tools experience on Windows has become a combination of SSMS and Azure Data Studio. Beginning in the 18.7 release of SQL Server Management Studio, Azure Data Studio…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Hugo Kornelis commented  · 

    Is this response from a product manager for real? Are we back in the '90s of software companies shoving their favorite add-ons through their cutomer's tools?

    I get that you want people to use the shiny new toy. This is not the way. This actually brings out the adolescent in me: it makes me even LESS likely to want to use ADS.

    You want people to use ADS? Simple solution: make it better!

    Hugo Kornelis supported this idea  · 
  3. 10 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    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…

    Hugo Kornelis supported this idea  · 
  4. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hugo Kornelis shared this idea  · 
  5. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hugo Kornelis shared this idea  · 
  6. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hugo Kornelis shared this idea  · 
  7. 7 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hugo Kornelis shared this idea  · 
  8. 7 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hugo Kornelis shared this idea  · 
  9. 4 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hugo Kornelis supported this idea  · 
  10. 59 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 29

    <=-=Jul 27 2016 5:17PM=-=>

    This feature vastly simplifies development of certain types of applications. Would be interesting at least know if microsoft has some intention to implement it.

    <=-=Jul 27 2016 5:19PM=-=>

    A fully compliant implementation to ansi sql 2011 would nice too.

    <=-=Jul 28 2016 1:01AM=-=>

    I would also like to see bitemporal support added, it would be most useful!

    <=-=Mar 7 2017 11:54AM=-=>

    This feature would really help people trying to migrate their DBs from DB2 or Oracle to SQL Server that much easier.

    Hugo Kornelis supported this idea  · 
  11. 382 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    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 →
    Hugo Kornelis supported this idea  · 
  12. 56 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    unplanned  ·  7 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Hugo Kornelis commented  · 

    Two points of clarification are needed.

    First: The phrasing of the suggestion may make it appear as if the new proposed names are endorsed by Pedro Lopes. This is not correct. The suggestion comes from Erin, Grant, and me; Pedro has assisted us by reviewing the blog post and giving suggestions but did not sign off on the suggested new names.

    Second: The main purpose of this suggestion is to replace the names "Estimated Execution Plan" and "Actual Execution Plan" with something better, something that does not reinforce the incorrect notions that estimated plans are not real, that they will not be used because they are not the actual plan, or any of the other common misunderstandings related to these names. The replacement names are our suggestions, but they are not the core of this suggestion. If other names are considered better, then please use those. Just make sure that the new names will not be prone to the same, or new, misunderstandings.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Hugo Kornelis commented  · 

    Happydba, Max Vernon: I'm glad that you are not confused by the existing terminology. But lots of others are.
    Too many people look at an execution plan and then say "yeah, but that's only the estimated plan, the actual plan might be different".
    Too many people think creating an "estimated" plan is a different process from creating an "actual" plan (whereas in reality the only difference is that the "actual" plan is made by adding data collected at run time).
    And this confusion stems from using different adjectives in front of "execution plan", which make it SOUND as if they are different plans.

    Joe Obbish: I don't know what "PEO" means. What your repro shows is the result of variable inlining, which only happens for a statement-level recompile. This happens before the optimizer even starts. The query gets internally changed to:

    SELECT * FROM master..spt_values
    WHERE @dummy = 1

    UNION ALL

    SELECT * FROM master..spt_values
    WHERE @dummy = 0
    OPTION (RECOMPILE)

    And not that this happens when the statement executes. So at execution time the optimizer will first compile the batch (resulting in the same execution plan as you'd get when you hit the "get estimated plan" button), then execution starts, then before this statement starts a NEW plan is compiled, now with the variable inlined which allows a branch to be removed from the plan. And this plan is then later enriched with run-time statistics and returned to the client.

    As already mentioned in the blog, recompiles can cause a new plan to be created. That new plan can look different from what was compiled before. But it's not a different type of plan.

    Hugo Kornelis shared this idea  · 
  13. 19 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hugo Kornelis supported this idea  · 
  14. 5 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hugo Kornelis supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Hugo Kornelis commented  · 

    I checked and I can reproduce the issue on both SQL Server 2017 and SQL Server 2019, as long as the compatibility level is high enough.

    When I change the conpatibility level to 100, the estimate is 1 for each query.
    So it appears that this is an issue with the new cardinality estimator only.

  15. 38 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hugo Kornelis supported this idea  · 
  16. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Other  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hugo Kornelis supported this idea  · 
  17. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hugo Kornelis shared this idea  · 
  18. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hugo Kornelis shared this idea  · 
  19. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hugo Kornelis shared this idea  · 
  20. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hugo Kornelis shared this idea  · 
← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base