Update: Microsoft will be moving away from UserVoice sites on a product-by-product basis throughout the 2021 calendar year. We will leverage 1st party solutions for customer feedback. Learn more here.

Andrew Hill

My feedback

  1. 109 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    5 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andrew Hill supported this idea  · 
  2. 694 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    30 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…

    Andrew Hill supported this idea  · 
  3. 1,261 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    111 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andrew Hill supported this idea  · 
  4. 121 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 60

    <=-=Mar 29 2017 11:32PM=-=>

    Just wanted to add that both Oracle and DB2 seem to support this feature:

    http://docs.oracle.com/database/122/SQLRF/LAG.htm#SQLRF00652
    https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSGU8G_12.1.0/com.ibm.sqls.doc/ids_sqs_1513.htm

    Cheers,
    Itzik

    <=-=Apr 16 2017 10:08PM=-=>

    That last IBM link was for Informix!

    The DB2 link is https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSEPGG_11.1.0/com.ibm.db2.luw.sql.ref.doc/doc/r0023461.html

    <=-=Jul 4 2017 3:30AM=-=>

    Thanks for reporting this request.
    It is in our backlog, and we have planned to do something like this, but we cannot confirm when it would be completed.

    Jovan

    <=-=Jul 10 2017 11:54AM=-=>

    Thanks, Jovan; good to hear.

    Andrew Hill supported this idea  · 
  5. 121 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    8 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
    Andrew Hill commented  · 

    even the query processor has this concept and is able to optimise queries to use it -- select * from s join t on s.pk=t.pk where exists (select s.* intersect t.*) shows an internal "is" operator, not "eq", and treats nulls as equal.

    However, presuming on the query optimiser here is not a good thing, as in non-trivial examples it isn't able to roll it into the form which the standard says i can use.

    Andrew Hill supported this idea  · 
  6. 378 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 249

    <=-=Oct 4 2016 2:15PM=-=>

    This is similar to my feedback located here: https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/2769130/sql-2016-temporal-tables-with-triggers. The solution I suggest is similar to this, and could be used in many different cases developing using SQL server.

    <=-=Jan 10 2017 9:43AM=-=>

    I would love this too. The issue is that many/most applications don’t use Windows Auth in the connection to SQL Server (connection pooling issues, etc), so SQL can’t get the User information

    <=-=Jan 10 2017 9:51AM=-=>

    @Sanford

    Just to clarify, I am not asking for an “automatically store user name” feature. I’m asking for “automatically store whatever I want, based on whatever expression I provide.” So the fact that the user name may or may not be available is not really relevant.

    That said, there are plenty of workarounds for various situations. I imagine that if you’re using a shared connection, you can get some notion of “user” some other…

    Andrew Hill supported this idea  · 
  7. 555 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    25 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andrew Hill supported this idea  · 
  8. 525 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    39 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andrew Hill supported this idea  · 
  9. 143 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    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 →
    Andrew Hill supported this idea  · 
  10. 347 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 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…

    Andrew Hill supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base