Geoff Patterson

My feedback

  1. 105 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 » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
  2. 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 » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
  3. 2 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 →
    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
  4. 9 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 →
    Geoff Patterson commented  · 

    We've tested SQL 2017 CU14, which contains "FIX: Access violation occurs when automatic statistics update happen on tables with incremental statistics in SQL Server 2017" (https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4488026). Our repro script no longer reproduces the error on CU14, so it looks like this issue is at least partially (and perhaps completely) fixed.

    We'll let you know if we encounter a similar AV error in another circumstance.

    Thank you!

    Geoff Patterson shared this idea  · 
  5. 274 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 » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
  6. 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 » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Geoff Patterson commented  · 

    The attachment doesn't seem to have worked, so here's a link to the repro script on GitHub: https://gist.github.com/pattertall/80fb901732f130f3e2ef5849ccd0b856

    Geoff Patterson shared this idea  · 
  7. 7 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 →
    Geoff Patterson shared this idea  · 
  8. 2 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 →
    Geoff Patterson shared this idea  · 
  9. 6 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 125

    <=-=Aug 10 2007 9:17PM=-=>

    Hi Microsoft, please confirm this optimizer problem by running the scripts, it is self evident and can be optimised significantly better.

    Eg. For a minimum, the optimal plan is to obtain the minimum for each partition using the index and then taking the minimum of all the (partition) results. The same principle can apply to maximum, and for Top N over an index …

    The plan should stand out as optimal, because the number of reads over the index is very small, and there will be one set of page reads (usually only one page) for each partition…. you can use the assumption that the number of partitions is significantly smaller than the number of rows (or even count the number of partitions), to estimate the cost (page reads) – which comes out at about N pages where N is the number of partitions.…

    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
  10. 11 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 →
    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
  11. 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 » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
  12. 24 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    8 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
  13. 14 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 » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
  14. 7 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 →
    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
  15. 26 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: 47

    <=-=Jul 3 2014 10:03AM=-=>

    This would definitely be a good build. I walked through an initial investigation of clustered columnstore on one of our data sets, and the number of reads was reduced by about 80% for some queries in the workload once I started paying careful attention to segments and loading data in a single-threaded manner to optimize segment elimination. However, this results in slower loading of data, and it would be great to be able to create columnstore indexes in order for segment elimination.

    Having an optional ORDER BY clause for the columnstore initial creation, removing the need to first create a clustered index in order to control order and allowing parallelism without breaking order, would be particularly powerful.

    <=-=Jul 3 2014 10:30AM=-=>

    Neugebauer: thanks. you identified the issue correctly. This is something we are actively looking. One question
    (1) once the index is build, the…

    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
  16. 11 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    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 →
    Geoff Patterson commented  · 

    We hit a similar problem with OPENJSON, Erik. Both your reproduction and ours appear to be fixed in the current private preview of vNext. Paul's reproduction still hits the intra-query deadlock, however.

    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
  17. 27 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
  18. 372 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    17 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
  19. 10 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
  20. 21 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 →
    Geoff Patterson supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base