Sam

My feedback

  1. 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 →
    Sam supported this idea  · 
  2. 50 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: 54

    <=-=Sep 4 2007 12:29PM=-=>

    If this is considered for a future version of SQL Server, please implement it according to the ISO SQL standard. In other words, implement the SQL Standard , which provides regular expression support through the operator [NOT] SIMILAR TO, which in the standard remains separate from LIKE.

    <=-=Sep 5 2007 7:05AM=-=>

    Like Steve, I would also like to stress that any implementation should be as per ANSI (SIMILAR predicate). The CLR functionality is not a relevant design consideration.

    <=-=Oct 15 2007 8:43AM=-=>

    This is a request we’ve heard a lot, and it’s of obvious value. I can’t promise when we’ll get to it—-it’s doubtful for this release—-but this is certainly on our radar.

    Cheers,
    -Isaac

    <=-=Mar 24 2010 2:54PM=-=>

    Hi,
    I have resolved this request as duplicate of feedback item below:

    https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/261342/regex-functionality-in-pattern-matching?wa=wsignin1.0


    Umachandar, SQL Programmability Team

    <=-=Mar 24 2010…
    Sam supported this idea  · 
  3. 84 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: 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 =…

    Sam supported this idea  · 
  4. 105 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 →
    Sam supported this idea  · 
  5. 138 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: 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…

    Sam supported this idea  · 
  6. 219 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…

    Sam supported this idea  · 
  7. 285 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.

    Sam supported this idea  · 
  8. 275 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 →
    Sam supported this idea  · 
  9. 344 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  14 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sam supported this idea  · 
  10. 305 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 →

    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…

    Sam supported this idea  · 
  11. 108 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 3

    <=-=Jan 8 2018 12:16PM=-=>

    Thanks for the suggestion.
    We’ll consider it for a future release.

    Are there specific limitations imposed when you have the filegroup, e.g., no database snapshot, that hold you back from creating the filegroup?
    Or is it only the feeling of not being able to turn back?


    Jos de Bruijn – Database Systems PM

    Sam supported this idea  · 
  12. 226 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 →

    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…

    Sam supported this idea  · 
  13. 94 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 →

    Object Explorer doesn’t populate the entire tree in memory, unlike visual studio’s solution explorer. It wouldn’t know if database “MyDatabase” existed until you expanded the Databases node.
    There are third party plugins that provide this type of functionality, I believe, by downloading a bunch of data in the background and exposing a search.

    Sam commented  · 

    "Object Explorer doesn’t populate the entire tree in memory, unlike visual studio’s solution explorer"

    So? This doesn't seem like a very big problem.

    Make it asynchronously load the entire tree when the application starts so you can have a decent search. This is zero reason why doing this is not possible.

    Having a great user experience (through search capabilities) is much more important than trying to make performance decisions on your customers behalf.

    Sam supported this idea  · 
  14. 108 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 →
    Sam supported this idea  · 
  15. 182 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 →
    Sam supported this idea  · 
  16. 207 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 →
    Sam supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base