Alexander Sharovarov

My feedback

  1. 363 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 →

    Upvotes: 8

    <=-=Mar 5 2017 2:42PM=-=>

    Thanks for this idea. This is a valid requirement and I hope that it will get more votes. Currently we cannot confirm when it will be added, but it is in our backlog.

    <=-=May 22 2017 5:03AM=-=>

    would like it very much, particularly since you already have the CONCAT / GREATEST() a variable number of paramenters and does something with it…

    <=-=Jun 5 2017 12:31PM=-=>

    GREATEST / LEAST functions would be fantastic addition.

    <=-=Nov 14 2017 3:42PM=-=>

    The workarounds using CROSS APPLY or CASE expressions are difficult to manage and read. I’d love to see these implemented.

    Alexander Sharovarov supported this idea  · 
  2. 725 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  127 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Alexander Sharovarov supported this idea  · 
  3. 326 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 →

    Upvotes: 249

    <=-=Oct 4 2016 2:15PM=-=>

    This is similar to my feedback located here: https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/2769130/sql-2016-temporal-tables-with-triggers. The solution I suggest is similar to this, and could be used in many different cases developing using SQL server.

    <=-=Jan 10 2017 9:43AM=-=>

    I would love this too. The issue is that many/most applications don’t use Windows Auth in the connection to SQL Server (connection pooling issues, etc), so SQL can’t get the User information

    <=-=Jan 10 2017 9:51AM=-=>

    @Sanford

    Just to clarify, I am not asking for an “automatically store user name” feature. I’m asking for “automatically store whatever I want, based on whatever expression I provide.” So the fact that the user name may or may not be available is not really relevant.

    That said, there are plenty of workarounds for various situations. I imagine that if you’re using a shared connection, you can get some notion of “user” some other…

    Alexander Sharovarov supported this idea  · 
  4. 11 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 » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Alexander Sharovarov supported this idea  · 
  5. 201 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  20 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Alexander Sharovarov supported this idea  · 
  6. 17 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 →
    Alexander Sharovarov supported this idea  · 
  7. 27 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: 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…

    Alexander Sharovarov supported this idea  · 
  8. 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 » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Alexander Sharovarov supported this idea  · 
  9. 83 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 » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 60

    <=-=Mar 29 2017 11:32PM=-=>

    Just wanted to add that both Oracle and DB2 seem to support this feature:

    http://docs.oracle.com/database/122/SQLRF/LAG.htm#SQLRF00652
    https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSGU8G_12.1.0/com.ibm.sqls.doc/ids_sqs_1513.htm

    Cheers,
    Itzik

    <=-=Apr 16 2017 10:08PM=-=>

    That last IBM link was for Informix!

    The DB2 link is https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSEPGG_11.1.0/com.ibm.db2.luw.sql.ref.doc/doc/r0023461.html

    <=-=Jul 4 2017 3:30AM=-=>

    Thanks for reporting this request.
    It is in our backlog, and we have planned to do something like this, but we cannot confirm when it would be completed.

    Jovan

    <=-=Jul 10 2017 11:54AM=-=>

    Thanks, Jovan; good to hear.

    Alexander Sharovarov supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Alexander Sharovarov commented  · 

    It very useful feature. It would allow the use of LAST_VALUE function for filling gaps in the data. A very common problem in data analysis and data science. If it is difficult to implement for all functions it should at least implemented for the LAST_VALUE function.

  10. 448 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    20 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…

    Alexander Sharovarov supported this idea  · 
  11. 399 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    22 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Alexander Sharovarov supported this idea  · 
  12. 1,098 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    unplanned  ·  85 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Alexander Sharovarov supported this idea  · 
  13. 101 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 →

    Object Explorer doesn’t populate the entire tree in memory, unlike visual studio’s solution explorer. It wouldn’t know if database “MyDatabase” existed until you expanded the Databases node.
    There are third party plugins that provide this type of functionality, I believe, by downloading a bunch of data in the background and exposing a search.

    Alexander Sharovarov supported this idea  · 
2 Next →

Feedback and Knowledge Base