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.

DW

My feedback

  1. 1 vote

    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

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    DW shared this idea  · 
  2. 2 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

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    DW shared this idea  · 
  3. 6 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

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    DW supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    DW commented  · 

    This is adds database name to "SET STATISTICS IO should also show schema name for tables" at:
    https://feedback.azure.com/forums/908035-sql-server/suggestions/32706970
    Votes for that item might be considered votes for this as well. (Any way to merge these?)

  4. 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 →
    DW supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    DW commented  · 

    Note that there is also a topic "Please include schema / database prefix in STATISTICS IO output" at:
    https://feedback.azure.com/forums/908035-sql-server/suggestions/32899231
    Votes for that item should be considered votes for this as well, as fulfilling that request would also fulfill this.

  5. 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…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    DW commented  · 

    Just wondering if an alternative might be to allow applying this on a per-filegroup basis. This would not only allow complete tables to be non- (or minimally-) logged, but also table partitions that use a partition scheme to place data across filegroups. It allows creation/definition of one unit with this feature that can be used to contain any number of tables/partitions/indexes. Plus, it puts this durability feature "closer" to the physical file system, which kind of makes more sense to me.

Feedback and Knowledge Base