Cláudio Silva

My feedback

  1. 15 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 →
    Cláudio Silva supported this idea  · 
  2. 169 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Cláudio Silva supported this idea  · 
  3. 971 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    98 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Cláudio Silva supported this idea  · 
  4. 60 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    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 →
    Cláudio Silva supported this idea  · 
  5. 112 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 →
    Cláudio Silva supported this idea  · 
  6. 11 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 » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Cláudio Silva supported this idea  · 
  7. 4 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 →
    Cláudio Silva shared this idea  · 
  8. 107 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 →
    Cláudio Silva supported this idea  · 
  9. 459 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 →
    Cláudio Silva supported this idea  · 
  10. 6 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 →
    Cláudio Silva supported this idea  · 
  11. 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: 55

    <=-=Jan 12 2014 7:29AM=-=>

    We experience this issue as described and in another common similar scenario: bringing a database out of READONLY, since another connection steals that single user connection. In any scenario where you have many clients (in our case 11 high traffic web servers) combined with single-connection-allowed, multi-step changes, a connection occuring between them is VERY common. This immediately causes failure. The worst aspect is it’s not a clean fail, you’ve gone from multi-user read-only to single-user readonly throwing errors on 10 servers and you’re often left in single user mode with and some 1 web server has that connection. In a high traffic environment that’s not a simple recovery either.

    Please allow some way to combine steps in both dropping database and read-only/read-write changes – they’re a huge pain point in an active environment currently.

    <=-=Mar 17 2016 5:39AM=-=>

    We need a T-SQL

    Cláudio Silva supported this idea  · 
  12. 38 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 » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi, thanx for the feedback.
    As Ben points out, if you know which fields on the Database object you need, you can use Server.SetDefaultInitFields to make sure the collection is initialized with all those fields in the first query.

    Is there a particular scenario, using the latest SMO NuGet, where use of SetDefaultInitFields isn’t sufficient to speed up the query noticeably?
    If you have an Intellitrace or XEvents trace I could use for reference it’d be a great help.

    Cláudio Silva supported this idea  · 
  13. 31 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 →
    Cláudio Silva supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base