Erik Darling

My feedback

  1. 5 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 →
    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  2. 4 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 →
    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  3. 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 →
    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  4. 257 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 →
    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  5. 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 →
    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  6. 105 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    10 comments  ·  SQL Managed Instance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi all and thank you for your feedback. While this will not directly address backup and restore from MI to back on-premises SQL (this is also being considered and some updates might follow), we are considering a replication technology which might help support this scenario. We are exploring product improvement opportunities in the area of hybrid link using distributed availability groups (AG) replication technology between SQL Server and MI. This will enable near real time data replication between SQL Server and MI. We are also considering failover scenarios both ways. If this might interest you, we invite you to provide your feedback to the engineering team through this online survey: https://aka.ms/mipg-chimera-survey. Thank you.

    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  7. 529 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    26 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…

    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  8. 46 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 →
    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  9. 10 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 →
    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  10. 24 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 →
    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  11. 290 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…

    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  12. 13 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 →
    Erik Darling 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

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  14. 30 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 →
    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  15. 33 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 →
    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  16. 41 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: 577

    <=-=Dec 13 2007 3:33PM=-=>

    Dear Itzik.

    Thanks a lot for your feedback… and the strong voting support for this feature. Indeed, as you know, I am very much in favor of extending our functionality in this area. For a variety of reasons we did not get this into SQL Server 2008, but we are certainly looking into it for a future release.

    Keep the votes and comments coming…
    Michael

    PS: My apologies for the late official reply…

    <=-=Mar 10 2009 4:37PM=-=>

    I am a big fan of the ranking functions and partition by clause. I used them extensively. It was a fantastic inclusion in 2005. However, I can’t tell the number of times I wished DISTINCT worked with the count function. I can’t believe it wasn’t included in 2008!! So I’ve added my vote to get this in ASAP.

    <=-=Sep 15 2009 7:08AM=-=>

    yes this would be…

    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  17. 7 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 →
    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  18. 16 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 →
    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
  19. 138 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 →
    Erik Darling shared this idea  · 
  20. 8 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 →
    Erik Darling supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1 3 4

Feedback and Knowledge Base