Anonymous

My feedback

  1. 155 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 →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  2. 55 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  3. 30 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 » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  4. 15 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: 174

    <=-=Oct 12 2006 2:21PM=-=>

    Dear Adam,

    Thanks for your feedback. I think this idea has quite a bit of merit. You would like a way to tell the query processor to evaluate query subexpressions in a constrained order. There is no perfect workaround right now. You could use a multi-statement TVF, but that is hard to program and hard to read. Your workaround requires an extra sort. We’ll consider this as an improvement for a future release.

    Regards,
    Eric

    <=-=Feb 4 2010 8:40AM=-=>

    SELECT x.EmployeeID,
    (
    SELECT COUNT_BIG(*)
    FROM HumanResources.Employee AS e
    WHERE e.ManagerId = x.ManagerID
    ) AS theCount
    FROM HumanResources.Employee AS x
    WHERE x.ManagerID IS NOT NULL;

    is also 4 logical reads – no materialization needed.

    In general, I’m not so sure about the need for this. If I truly need to materialize an intermediate result (which is typically quite small) I’m happy using a…

    Anonymous commented  · 

    Imo, MS should provide more direct means to exactly control execution plans because there are cases where the engine's AI approach proves ultimately proves itself to be inferior (even with updated stats, etc).

    Also, some use cases favor locked down query plans with highly predictable run times. Even though these run times would change relative to the underlying table sizes and perhaps become non-ideal, at least the run times wouldn't vary wildly due to plan changes due to row count thresholds.

    As part of a future materialization hint, being able to specify optional index key(s) would be appreciated.

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  5. 97 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 » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  6. 21 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 →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base