Andy Mallon

My feedback

  1. 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 →

    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…

    Andy Mallon supported this idea  · 
  2. 3 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 →
    Andy Mallon shared this idea  · 
  3. 215 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    16 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andy Mallon supported this idea  · 
  4. 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 » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andy Mallon supported this idea  · 
  5. 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 » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andy Mallon supported this idea  · 
  6. 12 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andy Mallon supported this idea  · 
  7. 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

    Andy Mallon supported this idea  · 
  8. 6 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 » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andy Mallon shared this idea  · 
  9. 16 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 →
    Andy Mallon shared this idea  · 
  10. 7 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 » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Andy Mallon commented  · 

    While the GUI doesn't allow you to do this, you can use TSQL to add Query Store configurations to model. If you do that, it will not enable Query Store on the model database, but rather will ensure that all newly created databases are created with Query Store enabled.

  11. 202 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  9 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andy Mallon supported this idea  · 
  12. 23 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 →
    Andy Mallon supported this idea  · 
  13. 92 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: 176

    <=-=Nov 13 2007 12:37AM=-=>

    Hello

    Thank you for your feedback. We’re certainly considering row value constructors for a future release of SQL Server.

    - Sara Tahir
    Microsoft SQL Server

    <=-=Aug 11 2010 8:03AM=-=>

    I think row constructors would be a great and important addition to T-SQL. Just wanted to point out a few more cases that I’d love to see implemented:


    - Assignment
    -
    —————————————————————————————————-

    UPDATE dbo.T1
    SET (c1, c2, c3) = (@p1, @p2, @p3)
    WHERE keycol = @key;

    — Logically equivalent to:

    UPDATE dbo.T1
    SET c1 = @p1,
    c2 = @p2,
    c3 = @p3
    WHERE keycol = @key;

    — Or with a subquery:

    UPDATE dbo.T1
    SET (c1, c2, c3) = (SELECT T2.c1, T2.c2, T2.c3
    FROM T2
    WHERE T2.keycol = T1.keycol)
    WHERE keycol = @key;

    — Logically equivalent to:
    UPDATE dbo.T1
    SET c1 = (SELECT T2.c1
    FROM T2
    WHERE T2.keycol = T1.keycol),
    c2 =…

    Andy Mallon supported this idea  · 
  14. 110 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 →
    Andy Mallon supported this idea  · 
  15. 59 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 →
    Andy Mallon supported this idea  · 
  16. 412 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    13 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andy Mallon supported this idea  · 
  17. 361 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 →
    Andy Mallon supported this idea  · 
  18. 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 » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 8

    <=-=Dec 8 2015 12:37PM=-=>

    Additional details on my blog: http://am2.co/2015/12/bug-in-filestream-gc-ag/

    <=-=Dec 8 2015 12:37PM=-=>

    Additional details on my blog: http://am2.co/2015/12/bug-in-filestream-gc-ag/

    <=-=Dec 21 2015 7:27AM=-=>

    In doing another round of testing, it appears that the TRUNCATE TABLE command does not get cleaned up by filestream garbage collection either. Both the DROP TABLE and TRUNCATE TABLE will remain unprocessed by garbage collection as long as the database is part of the Availability Group.

    Andy Mallon supported this idea  · 
  19. 36 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 » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andy Mallon supported this idea  · 
  20. 110 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  15 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andy Mallon shared this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base