Anonymous

My feedback

  1. 103 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    5 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 =…

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  2. 153 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  18 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  3. 324 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  46 comments  ·  SQL Server » Setup + Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  4. 25 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 » Setup + Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  5. 24 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: 38

    <=-=Mar 16 2017 11:48AM=-=>

    Or better yet, include an option to automatically adjust it based on wait stats.

    <=-=Mar 17 2017 12:34AM=-=>

    Or implement adaptive query plans that will adjust the parallelism dynamically based �n query execution stats

    <=-=Mar 17 2017 10:56AM=-=>

    Thanks for the feedback. We�ll be keeping this item open for future consideration.

    Thanks,
    shreya

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  6. 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…

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  7. 423 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    31 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  8. 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 →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  9. 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 →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  10. 47 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 →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  11. 27 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 →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  12. 3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Virtual Machines » Windows  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  13. 63 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 Managed Instance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  14. 112 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 →

    Upvotes: 289

    <=-=Aug 9 2007 9:12AM=-=>

    Benefits:
    Improved Readability, therefore Maintainablity, therefore reduced manpower $ and time expenditure.

    <=-=Aug 27 2007 6:13PM=-=>

    I definitely see the value of this. Thanks for proposing it. We’ll try to squeeze it in to SQL Server 2008 but things are really tight in terms of room for changes like this. It has to compete with many other things, including a bunch that have a larger impact on query performance, or that don’t have an easy workaround. This issue has a workaround, though it is not pretty and programmability would be enhanced a lot with the proposed enhancement. I’ll see what I can do.

    Best regards,
    Eric

    <=-=Oct 17 2007 2:06PM=-=>

    Things do not look good for this enhancement for Katmai. It probably will not make it into the release. We’ll make a final assessment in a couple of weeks. Before we can consider this,…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    Posting as a result of reading this article by Itzik

    https://sqlperformance.com/2020/02/t-sql-queries/null-complexities-part-3-missing-standard-features-and-t-sql-alternatives

    I particularly like his suggestion for a IS & IS NOT syntax

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  15. 42 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 →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  16. 58 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 →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  17. 178 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 » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 278

    <=-=Feb 1 2008 7:18PM=-=>

    Thanks for the valuable suggestion.

    This seems more like adding the sequence support which we’re seriously considering for the next major release.

    Meanwhile, would using identity column help?

    <=-=Feb 2 2008 2:11AM=-=>

    It does not seem that you understood the request. This definitely has nothing to do with
    IDENTITY. I am less versed about sequences, but I don’t think they will cut it either. If you think
    it does, maybe you could provide an example? Take this problem: For the Orders table in
    Northwind, write a query that lists the number of orders for all days in 1997. The result set should
    include all 365 days, and list zero for days without a number.

    This is a typical problem where you need a table of of numbers (or dates). While it’s easy to
    create such a table, I argue in this request that…

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  18. 262 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 →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  19. 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 →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  20. 420 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  16 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    An alternative Syntax would be to put it under BULK EXPORT ...

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1 3

Feedback and Knowledge Base