Gary Harding

My feedback

  1. 25 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 » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  2. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  3. 4 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 » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  4. 31 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 » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 0

    <=-=May 2 2011 8:50AM=-=>

    Hi DamiLaufer
    Thanks for taking the time to report this issue. We have investigated and found this is a known bug that has not made it to the top of our list yet. I’m resolving this item for now, but do have a work item tracking it.

    Thanks,
    -Sam Hughes

    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  5. 5 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  6. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Gary Harding commented  · 

    This will come as no surprise, but...
    The problem is still there in SSMS 18.6.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Gary Harding commented  · 

    The problem is still there in SSMS 18.5.1.

    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Gary Harding commented  · 

    The problem is still there in SSMS 18.5.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Gary Harding commented  · 

    The problem is still there in SSMS 18.4.

    Gary Harding shared this idea  · 
  7. 59 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 →
    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  8. 195 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 →
    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  9. 51 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 →

    Upvotes: 577

    <=-=Dec 13 2007 3:33PM=-=>

    Dear Itzik.

    Thanks a lot for your feedback… and the strong voting support for this feature. Indeed, as you know, I am very much in favor of extending our functionality in this area. For a variety of reasons we did not get this into SQL Server 2008, but we are certainly looking into it for a future release.

    Keep the votes and comments coming…
    Michael

    PS: My apologies for the late official reply…

    <=-=Mar 10 2009 4:37PM=-=>

    I am a big fan of the ranking functions and partition by clause. I used them extensively. It was a fantastic inclusion in 2005. However, I can’t tell the number of times I wished DISTINCT worked with the count function. I can’t believe it wasn’t included in 2008!! So I’ve added my vote to get this in ASAP.

    <=-=Sep 15 2009 7:08AM=-=>

    yes this would be…

    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  10. 596 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    27 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…

    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  11. 49 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 » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  12. 281 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    18 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  13. 33 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 » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  14. 5 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  15. 11 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Upvotes: 220

    <=-=Dec 21 2011 10:50AM=-=>

    Thanks for the suggestion. We will consider this for a future release. There is an undocumented trace flag 8649 to set the cost overhead of parallelism to 0. This may provide some relief, but is not a full solution. You can use it in a query hint in the form OPTION.

    Best regards,
    Eric Hanson
    Program Manger
    SQL Server Query Processing

    <=-=Dec 21 2011 3:39PM=-=>

    Hi Eric,

    Thanks for the very quick response. TF 8649 is indeed very helpful – perhaps we’re not so far away from seeing a PARALLEL_PLAN or MINDOP hint as I thought! Very cool, thanks again.

    Paul

    <=-=Feb 20 2014 1:02AM=-=>

    Any update on this? a normal hint would be much better than some undocumented or short term workarounds.

    <=-=Jun 8 2014 10:04PM=-=>

    Any update? It’s been a couple of years….

    <=-=Dec 1 2014 1:26AM=-=>

    I have major problem…

    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  16. 7 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 →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Gary Harding commented  · 

    While this is indeed a useful feature that I could have used in the past, there does need to be a way to turn it off in cases where PRINT statements are being used to carefully construct the query output in a fixed format.

    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  17. 537 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    29 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    This is not currently planned for the normal SQL DB since the databases within a logical server are not hosted within a single server like in SQL Server – they have multiple replicas that are independently placed on different servers due to the high availability architecture in SQL Azure. However, SQL Azure Managed Instance supports use database as a command because all of the databases in that model are on the same SQL instance – just like SQL Server. It is therefore recommended that you consider Managed Instance for migrations from on-premises SQL Server where you can not/do not wish to modify behavior to fit within a single SQL Azure DB.

    Topic left open for comments and voting, but please note that some of the comments left do not seem to recognize that SQL Managed Instance is available and recommended by Microsoft for many of the use cases listed. We…

    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  18. 506 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    22 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  19. 51 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 →

    Upvotes: 57

    <=-=Feb 8 2017 2:13PM=-=>

    We disallow ALL use of the PRIMARY filegroup on the premise that any use of PRIMARY is unauthorized, and PRIMARY is set to a small size with no autogrow. Since the Query Store on very active servers with non-parameterized workloads grows very, very fast, setting it to a filegroup whose data file is on a specific LUN (based on speed and cost, i.e. a specific storage tier) is vital.

    <=-=Apr 2 2017 7:56AM=-=>

    Thank you for taking time to post this issue! We understand that this could be an important issue for you.

    We get a lot of feedback regarding PRIMARY filegroup from the field and many MVPs. �
    This item is high on our priory list, but unfortunately, we do not plan to include a fix for this issue in the upcoming release. Although, we might include it as an improvement in future…

    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
  20. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Gary Harding commented  · 

    This problem is still present in SQL Server 2019 CTP 3.1.
    An easy illustration of the problem can be seen with the statistics for the clustered index of the syscategories table in the msdb database. The index is on (name, category_class) and the statistics histogram contains values from the leading name column. But sys.stats_columns reports stats_column_id #1 as category_class, and stats_column_id #2 as name, which wrongly indicates that category_class is the leading column in these statistics.

    Gary Harding supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base