Alex Friedman

My feedback

  1. 14 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 →
    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
  2. 247 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    10 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
  3. 172 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 →
    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
  4. 551 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    27 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…

    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
  5. 8 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 →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Alex Friedman commented  · 

    Bump, this has been pending approval for a month now

    Alex Friedman shared this idea  · 
  6. 1,022 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    100 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
  7. 64 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  4 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
  8. 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 →
    Alex Friedman shared this idea  · 
  9. 23 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  5 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
  10. 482 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 →
    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
  11. 85 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 →
    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
  12. 184 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 →
    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
  13. 4 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 →

    Upvotes: 3

    <=-=Dec 15 2016 4:15AM=-=>

    I’ve seen the same thing happening when working on a very long-running script te generate test data. I used RAISERROR WITH NOWAIT to show progress messages and at one point the script appeared to completely halt.
    I considered killing the script but decided to wait a bit longer, which turned out to be a good idea. After a few minutes, a whole burst of messages came out at once. That repeated for the rest of the script execution.

    This difference between documented and actual behaviour could have easily lost me hours of time if I had decided to abort the apparently-stalled script.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Alex Friedman commented  · 

    This is actually buffering by SSMS and not by SQL Server itself, after 500 messages.

  14. 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 →
    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
  15. 9 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 →

    Upvotes: 198

    <=-=Nov 3 2015 10:21AM=-=>

    And not just for sandboxing…on production servers where we have special crazy-fast multi-TB cache cards for the TempDB but the SAN where the production databases reside is relatively slow. This makes it very compelling to force a lot of things to happen inside TempDB and then later sync that to production.

    <=-=Apr 2 2017 8:08AM=-=>

    Thank you for taking time to post this issue! We understand that this could be an important issue for you.

    This item is high on our priory list, but unfortunately, we do not plan to include a fix for this issue in the upcoming release. Although, we might include it as an improvement in future releases.

    <=-=Apr 2 2017 8:08AM=-=>

    Thank you for taking time to post this issue! We understand that this could be an important issue for you.

    This item is high on our priory list, but…

    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
  16. 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 » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
  17. 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 →
    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
  18. 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 » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
  19. 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 →

    Upvotes: 3

    <=-=May 27 2017 9:54AM=-=>

    Thank you for taking the time to post this issue! We understand that this could be an important issue for you.

    Unfortunately, we do not plan to include a fix for this issue in the upcoming release, although, we might include it as an improvement in a future release.

    Alex Friedman 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

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 3

    <=-=May 27 2017 6:38AM=-=>

    Thank you for taking the time to post this issue! We understand that this could be an important performance improvement.
    Performance tuning is of such scenarios is not a trivial task. Change of such feature as Query Store can speed up one scenario and lead to degradation in others. We�ll look more into this particular use case and see what we can do.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Alex Friedman commented  · 

    Querying the Query Store is especially important during a production performance issue -- and that's also when it's so difficult to get results quickly from it due to the performance of its queries. Please fix it!

    Alex Friedman supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base