Petr Pařík

My feedback

  1. 1,466 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    153 comments  ·  Azure Resource Manager  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  2. 234 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    78 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Petr Pařík commented  · 

    I totally agree. The debugger is a killer feature. I have not seen other RDBMS with such a thing. I wonder what was the reason for removing it. Anybody knows if MS plans to reintroduce it?

    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  3. 162 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 » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Petr Pařík commented  · 

    @Rozenbaum Alexander: using column aliases in the ORDER BY clause is already supported.

    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  4. 122 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: 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…

    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  5. 6 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
    Petr Pařík shared this idea  · 
  6. 237 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: 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.

    Petr Pařík commented  · 

    Names are not so important, these do not have to necessarily be named MIN and MAX. But please implement functions with the described functionality - it will help to make code much more readable.

    Also, from my point of view, variable number of arguments is very important, but can be implemented later, if it speeds up the implementation.

    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  7. 153 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    9 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Petr Pařík 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

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Petr Pařík shared this idea  · 
  9. 168 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  8 comments  ·  SQL Server » Setup + Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  10. 192 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 » 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…

    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  11. 312 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  12 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  12. 52 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 →
    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  13. 270 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    11 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  14. 436 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    26 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  15. 120 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 →
    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  16. 173 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  33 comments  ·  SQL Server » Setup + Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Petr Pařík commented  · 

    For us this is show-stopper for upgrade to SQL Server 2017. Our customers use SSRS named instances for separation of projects and for separation of environments (TEST, PROD, ...).

    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  17. 37 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 →
    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  18. 193 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: 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…

    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  19. 46 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  3 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
  20. 334 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  51 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Petr Pařík supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base